JSE 271 online.indd - Journal of Scientific Exploration

(ISSN 0892-3310)

Editorial Offi ce: Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Society for Scientifi c Exploration,Kathleen E. Erickson, JSE Managing Editor, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA [email protected], 1-415-435-1604, (fax 1-707-559-5030)Manuscript Submission: Submit manuscripts online at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/loginEditor-in-Chief: Stephen E. Braude, University of Maryland Baltimore CountyManaging Editor: Kathleen E. Erickson, Petaluma, CAAssociate EditorsCarlos S. Alvarado, Virginia Beach, VADaryl Bem, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NYRobert Bobrow, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NYCourtney Brown, Emory University, Alanta, GAEtzel Cardeña, Lund University, SwedenJeremy Drake, Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MABernard Haisch, Digital Universe Foundation, USAMichael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TXRoger D. Nelson, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, ILS. James P. Spottiswoode, Los Angeles, CAMichael Sudduth, San Francisco State University, CABook Review Editor: P. D. Moncrief ([email protected])Assistant Managing Editor/Proofreader: Elissa Hoeger, Princeton, NJAssistant Managing Editor/Copyeditor: Eve Blasband, Larkspur, CA

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration website http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/login Society for Scientifi c Exploration website http://www.scientifi cexploration.org

Chair, Publications Committee: Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, Princeton, NJEditorial BoardChair, Prof. Richard C. Henry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MDDr. Mikel Aickin, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZDr. Steven J. Dick, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DCDr. Peter Fenwick, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UKDr. Alan Gauld, University of Nottingham, UKProf. Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, NJProf. W. H. Jeff erys, University of Texas, Austin, TXDr. Wayne B. Jonas, Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VADr. Michael Levin, Tufts University, Boston, MADr. David C. Pieri, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CAProf. Juan Roederer, University of Alaska–Fairbanks, AKProf. Peter A. Sturrock, Stanford University, CAProf. Yervant Terzian, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYProf. N. C. Wickramasinghe, Cardiff University, UK

SUBSCRIPTIONS & PREVIOUS JOURNAL ISSUES: Order forms on back pages or at scientifi cexploration.org.

COPYRIGHT: Authors retain copyright to their writings. However, when an article has been submitted to the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, the Journal holds fi rst serial rights. Additionally, the Society has the right to post the published article on the Internet and make it available via electronic and print subscription. Th e material must not appear anywhere else (including on an Internet website) until it has been published by the Journal (or rejected). After publication, authors may use the material as they wish but should make appropriate reference to JSE: “Reprinted from “[title of article]”, Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, vol. [x], no. [xx], pp. [xx], published by the Society for Scientifi c Exploration, http://www.scientifi cexploration.org.”

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration (ISSN 0892-3310) is published quarterly in March, June, September, and Decem-ber by the Society for Scientifi c Exploration, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #227, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA. Society Members receive online Journal subscriptions with their membership. Online Library subscriptions are $135.

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATIONA Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration

AIMS AND SCOPE: Th e Journal of Scientifi c Exploration publishes material consistent with the Society’s mission: to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science, and to promote improved understanding of social and intellectual factors that limit the scope of scientifi c inquiry. Topics of interest cover a wide spectrum, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to paradoxical phenomena that seem to belong to no established discipline, as well as philosophical issues about the connections among disciplines. Th e Journal publishes research articles, review articles, essays, commentaries, guest editorials, historical perspectives, obituaries, book reviews, and letters or commentaries pertaining to previously published material.



Vo l u m e 2 7 , N u m b e r 1 2 0 1 3

Editorial

5 Editorial STEPHEN E. BRAUDE

Research Articles

13 Longitudinal Electromagnetic Waves? The EDWARD J. BUTTERWORTH

Monstein–Wesley Experiment Reconstructed CHARLES B. ALLISON

DANIEL CAVAZOS

FRANK M. MULLEN

25 The UFO Abduction Syndrome TED DAVIS

DON C. DONDERI

BUDD HOPKINS

43 Description of Benveniste’s Experiments Using Quantum-Like Probabilities FRANCIS BEAUVAIS

73 Replication Attempt: Measuring Water Conductivity with Polarized Electrodes SERGE KERNBACH

Commentary

111 The Infl uence of Reichenbach’s Concept of Od CARLOS S. ALVARADO

Obituary

117 Archie E. Roy Dies at 88 TRICIA ROBERTSON

Letters to the Editor

119 Registering Parapsychological Experiments CAROLINE WATT

120 Magnetic Anomalies and the Paranormal ADRIAN RYAN

121 Response to Adrian Ryan JOHN D. RALPHS

Book Reviews

123 The Risks of Prescription Drugs edited by Donald W. Light HENRY H. BAUER

128 The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal by Lawrence LeShan MICHAEL BOVA

130 Controversies in Archaeology by Alice Beck Kehoe STEPHEN C. JETT

147 The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin HENRY H. BAUER

154 The Lonely Sense: The Autobiography of a Psychic Detective by Robert Cracknell and Colin Wilson ROBERT MCLUHAN

157 Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite: The Science of Monsters by Matt Kaplan THOMAS E. BULLARD

164 The Big Book of UFOs by Chris A. Rutkowski BILLY COX

Articles of Interest 166 The Tobacco Beetle in Egyptian Mummies by Dominique Görlitz, Migration & Diffusion, 2011 CR. STEPHEN C. JETT

168 Research Grants: Conform and Be Funded by Joshua M. Nicholson and John P. A. Ioannidis, Nature, 492, 2012 CR. HENRY H. BAUER

170 Awaiting a New Darwin by H. Allen Orr, The New York Review of Books, February 7, 2013 CR. P. DAVID MONCRIEF

SSE News 172 Parapsychological Conference; WISE Conference 173 32nd Annual SSE Conference Announcement 174 SSE Masthead 175 Index of Previous Articles in JSE 190 Order forms: JSE Back Issues, JSE Subscriptions, and SSE Membership 193 Instructions for JSE Authors

5

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 5–11, 2013 0892-3310/13

EDITORIAL

Periodicals of various sorts have long recognized the need to address certain topics on a regular basis. That’s why computer magazines

routinely offer articles such as “Windows Tips and Tricks,” and “How to Protect Your Data.” Similarly, photography magazines return again and again to articles explaining how to get the most out of wide-angle lenses, how to shoot portraits in natural light, or how to photograph dramatic landscapes. It seems to me that JSE editorials might also need to recycle certain topics from time to time, in part because readership changes, and in part because researchers in areas of frontier science can have conveniently short memories (like everyone else), perhaps especially when it comes to matters that are intellectually or professionally challenging or uncomfortable.

The continuing debate over Daryl Bem’s recent precognition experiments (see Bem 2011, and the Editorial in JSE 25:1) and the similar controversy still dogging work on LENR or “cold fusion” suggests that perhaps it’s time to review certain salient facts about the nature of experimental replication in science. What follows is not new. Harry Collins has done outstanding work on this topic (Collins 1992), and I also addressed the issue at length (Braude 2002). For more recent commentary, see also Stefan Schmidt (2009). Apparently, however, what’s both obvious and commonsensical is very easy to overlook.

Of course, it’s clear enough why so much emphasis is placed on the replication of experiments, not just in parapsychological and LENR research but in other areas of science as well. Experimental replication would seem to be an obvious and straightforward means of legitimizing experimental results. The underlying idea is that if an experiment E gives a certain result while attempted replications do not, we have good reason to regard E’s result as spurious or inconclusive. And if continued attempts to replicate E fail to duplicate E’s result, we have (so the story goes) good reason for regarding the outcome of E to be due to a fl aw in E’s experimental design, or to experimental negligence or incompetence, and perhaps even to chicanery. So the received view is that the only legitimate experimental results in science are those that can be repeated reliably, and in this way scientifi c repeatability has served as a kind of supplementary demarcation criterion (after falsifi ability) between science and non-science (or pseudoscience).

I assume that nearly all JSE readers are familiar with this story. But I have to wonder how many of them realize that it rests on an unacceptably naïve conception of what experimental repeatability actually is, as well

6 Editorial

as an even deeper conceptual confusion over the nature of similarity. The former is simply a special case of the latter.

The fi rst point worth considering is that, despite considerable scientifi c posturing to the contrary, when it comes right down to it—especially in situations when the scientist’s own work is on the line—experimental replicability in fact is rarely (if ever) considered to be an essential feature of genuine science. Rather, it’s typically regarded as such primarily in politically charged debates over psi research, LENR, and some other areas of frontier science. In those debates, defenders of the replicability requirement (let’s whimsically call them replicants) seem conveniently to forget, fi rst of all, that criteria of (and reliance on) replicability vary considerably from one area of science to another. Not surprisingly, these differences are especially pronounced when we compare behavioral sciences to nonbehavioral sciences. But even in the physical sciences, the importance of (and reliance on) replicability varies greatly—say, from geology and astronomy (not to mention cosmology and meteorology) to physics and chemistry.

But a much more serious problem is that the very concept of experimental replication is exceedingly crude. To see why, let’s begin by asking: In what respects can replication attempts differ from the original experiment? It’s clear, fi rst of all, that no replication attempt can ever be exactly the same as the original, if only because of changes in the time and place of the experiments. But of course those differences will be accompanied by differences in the general conditions of the experiment or in the experimental environment. And these may include differences in the actual participants. But even if the participants remain the same, we can expect changes in their attitude or mood, or even in the condition of the experimental apparatus required (especially sophisticated, sensitive, or delicate equipment), all of which might vary subtly or dramatically from one test to another.

Notice that—even in the “hard” sciences—these sorts of differences between experiments and their replication attempts are tolerated all the time (if they’re noticed at all). In physics, an experiment conducted at laboratory L with a certain kind of particle accelerator might be replicated at laboratory L′ with a different design of accelerator. In microbiology, experiments conducted with microorganism M in solution S might be replicated by studying M in a different solution S ′ (which may have been more convenient to use, but whose differences are considered insignifi cant). In fact, even a different microorganism M′ might have been substituted and its difference discounted. And of course, despite the expectations of the replicating scientist, it’s always possible that such differences between experiments lead to differences in experimental outcome. For example, in

Editorial 7

physics, some of the differences between experiments and their attempted replications might account for the mixed results of efforts to test the EPR paradox and hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics. In fact, these attempts didn’t even study the same particles. One used proton pairs (McWeeny & Amovilli 1999), and the others, photons (e.g., Freedman & Clauser 1972, Aspect, Dalibard, & Roger 1982, Aspect, Grangier, & Roger 1982). Yet they’re all considered versions of the same experiment,1

originally proposed in a thought experiment by David Bohm, but which involved electron-pairs (Bohm 1952a, 1952b, Bohm & Aharonov 1957). At any rate, the standard procedure in cases such as this is to ignore the differences between these experiments so long as their results more or less agree, and thus to regard the follow-up experiments as replications of the earlier ones. But if the experiments produce suffi ciently dissimilar results, the standard procedure is to regard the later experiments as failing to replicate the former.

There’s a very important moral to this story. If we pay attention to the way the business of science is actually conducted, what we fi nd is that criteria of experimental replicability are both very loose and never fully specifi ed. In fact, scientists don’t decide whether follow-up experiment E2 counts as a replication of original experiment E1 until the results of E2 are in. It’s certainly not decided solely on the basis of formal features of the two experiments—something potentially expressible in a “recipe” or unambiguous and complete list of all relevant procedures. On the contrary, when scientists agree that E2’s results match those of E1, they will simply ignore the unavoidable and potentially relevant differences between E1 and E2, declare that E1 has been replicated, and (in some cases) conclude that the results lend confi rmatory weight to a shared, underlying, and trusted theory. But if E2 fails to yield the hoped-for (and possibly only approximate) duplication of E1’s results, the standard reaction is to suppose that the inevitable differences between the two experiments in fact made a difference and that this failure does not automatically cast doubt on or discredit the original experiment’s results or the shared underlying theory. As a rule, then, both avoidable and unavoidable differences between experiments and replication attempts are tolerated all the time, and ignored so long as the results pan out more or less as expected, but invoked when results go the other way.

Another way to put the point is this: Whether or not the differences between E1 and E2 count as relevant is not determined independently of the decision as to whether the latter replicates the former. Scientists tend to regard many such differences as important only if the outcomes of the experiments differ. But before knowing the results of E2, it’s pretty much an

8 Editorial

open question whether the differences between E1 and E2 matter. Of course, scientists may claim in advance that the differences don’t matter, but if the replication attempt fails to give more or less the same results as the original experiment, they may retract that judgment.

The situation changes somewhat when a series of replication attempts fails to consistently produce results similar to the original experiment. But even then (as we’ve seen recently with attempts to replicate Bem’s experiments), the same general attitude about replicability prevails. When the later experiments fail to produce positive results like those obtained by Bem, the conversation focuses, for instance, on the differences in the protocols, or the different attitudes of the experimenters. And again, it’s likely that these differences would also have been ignored had the later results all been positive. After all, some attempts to replicate Bem’s experiments have been considered successful, and they’re not strictly identical to the experiments Bem originally performed. Furthermore, there’s nothing inherently suspicious or unsavory about this. That’s simply the way science works, and given the inevitable differences between original experiments and replication attempts—magnifi ed in the behavioral sciences by many additional kinds of potentially relevant variables—it’s the only way it can work.

Interestingly, many consider replication attempts successful and convincing only when they’re conducted by someone other than the original scientist. In part, I suppose, it’s because they believe that any legitimate experiment can be described in a list of procedures which any competent scientist should be able to follow and produce the same results. For example (and somewhat notoriously), Karl Popper wrote, “any empirical scientifi c statement can be presented (by describing experimental arrangement, etc.) in such a way that anyone who has learned the relevant techniques can test it” (Popper 1959:99, emphasis added). This position is especially dubious when applied to parapsychology, alternative healing experiments, and the behavioral sciences generally, where experimenter expectancy effects and the variability of subject–experimenter interactions are particularly problematical. But it’s also an obviously questionable position to take with respect to any area of frontier science, where the relevance of numerous and unavoidable differences between experiments hasn’t yet been determined. In fact, I’d say that one of the most important lessons learned from the behavioral sciences, and reinforced by studies in many areas of frontier science, is that it’s still an open question whether it’s reasonable to expect success when replication attempts are conducted by someone other than the original experimenter. Moreover, it’s unclear to what extent this might be an issue in mainstream science, where (as Rupert Sheldrake has noted (1998)), double-blind protocols are typically neither used nor even taught as sound

Editorial 9

methodology, and where potential experimenter effects are not even on the radar.

As I mentioned above, some diffi culties in determining when an experiment has been repeated are not peculiar to the scientifi c enterprise or to the process of experimentation. Rather, they’re an instance of the more general problem of determining when any sort of event has been repeated. These problems, in other words, concern the general concept of recurrence, and even more fundamentally, the concept of similarity.

Suppose that A tells a certain joke and that his telling of the joke, J, is very funny. But suppose that B, who is not as comedically gifted as A, tries to tell A’s joke using different words, infl ection, and timing, as a result of which his joke-attempt J′ is not funny. How, then, do we answer the question: Is J′ a recurrence of joke-attempt J? The important thing to observe here is that this question has no simple or straightforward answer. There are perfectly acceptable reasons for answering it either affi rmatively or negatively. Some might say that although B told the same joke as A, he didn’t do so with the same (or perhaps any) comedic skill. On the other hand, some might claim that, since A and B uttered different strings of words, and since J′ was not funny, A’s joke had not been repeated by B.

The important point to grasp here is that neither response is intrinsically better than the other. Whether we take B’s performance to replicate A’s performance depends on what’s appropriate for the context in which the question arises. Suppose people are taking turns telling jokes at a party and that each person is expected to tell a different joke. If B were to tell his joke, we might feel justifi ed in complaining that he didn’t tell a new joke and in fact that he merely told A’s joke rather poorly. On the other hand, suppose the party guests are playing a different game, in which each has to memorize and repeat verbatim what his immediate predecessor says. Suppose, then, that A tells his joke and that B, whom we may suppose is mnemonically challenged, tries unsuccessfully to repeat A’s performance. Even if the content of what A and B said was similar, so that we might consider B to have succeeded in producing a version of A’s joke, B’s performance (the string of words produced in the manner produced) would not count in this context as a replication of A’s performance. We can imagine even more stringent requirements of replicability. Suppose B is studying the comedic arts, and that his task is to repeat, not just the same words as those of his teacher A, but also A’s infl ection and timing (and note, criteria of sameness for infl ection and timing are not hard and fast; for example, we needn’t suppose that A and B have voices of the same quality). In this context, what B does will not be a recurrence or replication of what A does, if B manages to get only the words exactly right.

10 Editorial

The moral of all this is that whether or not B’s verbal performance constitutes a recurrence (or replication) of A’s joke-telling J is not simply a function of formal features of what A and B do and say. In one context B’s sequence of words might count as a recurrence of J, while in another it might not.

This is simply a real-life example of a point that applies even to the most elementary examples in mathematics, which likewise demonstrate that the relation “__is similar to__” is not simply a static, two-termed relation between things, but is inevitably tied to contextual and variable criteria of relevance that are not part of an absolute inventory of Nature’s furniture. As I’ve noted many times, this can be easily illustrated by an example from geometry, although mathematicians typically use the term “congruence” rather than “similarity” (for a more elaborate discussion of this example, see Braude, 2007, Chapter 7). In any case, mathematicians know that in the absence of some specifi ed or agreed-upon rule of projection, or function for mapping geometric fi gures onto other things, no fi gure is congruent with (similar to) anything else. They recognize that there are different standards of congruence, appropriate for different situations. Depending on which rule of projection we choose, we may consider a given triangle to be congruent only with triangles with the same horizontal orientation and the same angles, or we may consider it to be congruent with any triangle, or even with squares or lines. So in geometry, no property intrinsic to a given triangle determines which other geometrical fi gures that triangle is congruent with. And that’s because no situation is intrinsically basic; standards of relevance emerge from living and ephemeral human situations, not from Nature herself. But then no standard of congruence or similarity is inherently privileged or more fundamental than others. And clearly, if this is true even for the comparison of simple geometrical fi gures, it’s true a fortiori for the comparison of much more multi-faceted joke attempts and scientifi c experiments.2

A short but important note on a different matter. This issue contains a

letter from Caroline Watt announcing the implementation of a webpage for registering parapsychological experiments. The value of this or any registry has recently been a hot topic for debate among parapsychologists, and, as far as I can tell, there’s little consensus among researchers on the matter. Consequently, the JSE will remain neutral and allow researchers to decide for themselves whether to avail themselves of this opportunity to register their experiments. As a result, I feel it’s important to note that the JSE will not require authors reporting parapsychological experiments to register their studies, and that registration will not be a factor in my editorial decisions.

~ ~ ~

Editorial 11

Notes

1 That’s because (as James Spottiswoode was kind enough to remind me—personal communication) quantum mechanics “explicitly predicts that all these particles should show the same behavior. So failure to replicate across particles would have big consequences.”

2 I’m grateful to James Spottiswoode and Michael Ibison for some very helpful communications on the topic of this Editorial.

STEPHEN E. BRAUDE

References

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804–1807.

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91–94.

Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive infl uences on cognition and aff ect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425.

Bohm, D. (1952a). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. I. Physical Review, 85(2), 166–179.

Bohm, D. (1952b). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. II. Physical Review, 85(2), 180–193.

Bohm, D., & Aharonov, Y. (1957). Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Physical Review, 108, 1070–1076.

Braude, S. E. (2002). ESP and Psychokinesis: A Philosophical Examination (revised edition). Parkland, FL: Brown Walker Press.

Braude, S. E. (2007). The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Collins, H. M. (1992). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientifi c Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Freedman, S. J., & Clauser, J. F. (1972). Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters, 28(14), 938–941.

McWeeny, R., & Amovilli, C. (1999). Locality and nonlocality in quantum mechanics: A two‐proton EPR experiment. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 74(5), 573–584.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientifi c Discovery. New York: Harper.Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected

in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100. Sheldrake, R. (1998). Experimenter eff ects in scientifi c research: How widely are they neglected?

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 12, 73–78.

13


RESEARCH ARTICLE

Longitudinal Electromagnetic Waves?

The Monstein–Wesley Experiment Reconstructed

EDWARD J. BUTTERWORTH

Department of Physics and Geosciences, Texas A&M University–[email protected]

CHARLES B. ALLISON

Department of Physics and Geosciences, Texas A&M University–Kingsville

DANIEL CAVAZOS

College of Engineering, Texas A&M University–Kingsville

FRANK M. MULLEN

The Department of Industrial Technology, Texas A&M University–Kingsville

Submitted 5/18/2012, Accepted 9/29/2012, Pre-published 1/15/2013

Abstract—We repeat the experiment reported in a controversial publi-cation of Monstein and Wesley (MW), in which they claimed to have de-tected longitudinal electromagnetic (EM) waves in free space, a phenom-enon incompatible with Maxwell’s equations. While we are convinced that Maxwell’s equations are valid and that longitudinal EM waves do not exist, we recognized that the radiation pattern observed in the MW experiment was itself interesting, while noting that no one had actually repeated MW’s experiments. Therefore we constructed a duplicate of MW’s apparatus and ran their experiments along with some additional ones. We intended both to test whether MW’s results could be duplicated, and to distinguish between their theoretical model and that of a critical article published by Rębilas proposing ground plasma currents as the true cause of the waves observed by MW. We also determined the fi eld pattern of the ball antenna experimentally. Our experimental results actually resemble MW’s theoreti-cal pattern more closely than did their own experiment, an interesting re-sult considering that MW’s theory is almost universally considered incor-rect. However, our experimental results were not compatible with Rębilas’ (very plausible) theoretical explanation. Thus we dispute MW’s claim on theoretical grounds, and Rębilas’ ground plasma currents on experimental grounds. We conclude that a yet-unidentifi ed mechanism must be produc-ing the observed results.

Keywords: Electromagnetic waves—Maxwell’s equations—scalar waves—ball antenna—radiation pattern

14 E. Butterworth, C. Allison, D. Cavazos, and F. Mullen

Introduction and Background

We investigate a controversial publication by Monstein and Wesley (MW) (2002), in which they claimed to have detected longitudinal electromagnetic (EM) waves propagating in free space. Maxwell’s equations represent the substance of classical electrodynamics: These four equations, taken together, preclude the existence of a longitudinal electric fi eld component in a free-space wave (Bruhn 2002, Burko 2008, Kühlke 2008); thus the existence of such waves would require rewriting EM fi eld theory. Most claims asserting the existence of such waves have been shown to rest upon obvious fallacies, poor observations, or misinterpretations of data (Meyl 2001, Bruhn 2002). MW’s work has garnered attention largely due to their unique experimental design and the unusual character of their published experimental results. Articles both pro and con appeared in response to MW’s, while Rębilas (2008) derived a possible alternative explanation for MW’s results. None of these responders, however, built the MW apparatus and repeated the experiments.

Beginning with a sinusoidal solution to the wave equation and making some assumptions about the nature of the wave propagation, MW derive an equation for the signal intensity of the purported longitudinal EM waves as a function of distance between transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx):

(1)

Here A and B are wave amplitudes,

where hR and hT are the Tx and Rx heights, respectively, x is the Tx-Rx distance along the ground.

The MW experimental apparatus is described briefl y as follows. Tx, powered by a 12 V battery, feeds a 433.59 MHz signal into a ball antenna (r = 30 mm). Rx consists of a similar ball antenna coupled to a fi eld-effect transistor and voltmeter, also powered by a 12 V battery. Between Tx and Rx are positioned a pair of rotatable polarizer–analyzer arrays, intended to fi lter out waves polarized perpendicular to its orientation. MW claim that with both directions perpendicular to the direction of propagation thus blocked, only waves with a longitudinal electric fi eld can pass.

2 3 2 3 2 21 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 13 3

1 2

( ) cos ( ) sin ( )2

wkx ABS B r A r ABr r r r k r r r r k r r

r r k

2 2 2 2 2 21 2( ) and ( )R T R Tr h h x r h h x

Monstein–Wesley Revisited 15

Following MW’s publication, a response by Bray and Britton (2004) disputed both their claims: that MW’s theoretical analysis was compatible with Maxwell’s equations; and that a ball antenna cannot generate a classical TEM wave. They also show that MW’s prediction of the behavior of a uniform spherical charge density contradicts the continuity equation. In their response to this criticism, MW (2004) concede that their equation is not compatible with Maxwell’s equations, but now assert explicitly that Maxwell’s equations must be modifi ed to admit the longitudinal waves that they claim to have detected.

Because MW’s experimental results were being cited by those who have argued for the existence of free-space longitudinal waves (Van Vlaenderen 2003, 2005), Rębilas (2008) considered it important not only to document the fl aws in MW’s theoretical discussion, but also to explain their experimental results using classical electrodynamics. He explained the effect in terms of ground currents and plasma theory, deriving a signal strength equation of the form:

(2)

(we have corrected an integration order mistake in the original) where r is the vector from ground zero below Tx to the Rx ball antenna, Δr is the vector from the fi eld point (on the ground) to the receiver, φ is the angle between the Tx-Rx vector and the Tx-fi eld point vector, and ka is the free-space wavenumber. He superimposed the graph obtained from this equation over MW’s experimental data, to make the case that it represents that data more closely than does MW’s theory.

Since no one had built a duplicate MW apparatus, we chose to do this and to conduct experiments to assess whether MW’s results are reproducible, along with additional experiments that might shed more light on this effect, and also to test Rębilas’ theoretical predictions. This was not a trivial task: Bray and Britton previously noted that the nature of the experiment makes it extremely diffi cult to control the variables against many possible forms of external interference. We reject the claim that free-space longitudinal EM waves can exist and thus that Maxwell’s equations need modifi cation; rather, we recognize that the results of the MW experiment have generated


interest, and thus we have attempted to duplicate them as a step toward determining the source of the signal amplitude pattern they observed.

Methods and Materials

Following MW’s description of the apparatus, we constructed the ball antennae, support stanchions, half-wave dipole antennae for comparison purposes, and a pair of polarizer–analyzers consisting of nine wires in 3 × 3 arrays, a half-wavelength long and a quarter-wave apart, one horizontal and one vertical. The horizontal polarizer can be rotated.

The ball antennae were constructed from solid 3″ diameter aluminum balls (Craig Ball Sales, Seaford, Delaware). Machining was done at the Industrial Technology machine shop at Texas A&M University. The antennae were mounted on 2 m–high stanchions (lower than MW used). The signal was transmitted at 446 MHZ (very close to MW’s frequency) using a Realistic HTX-404 440 MHz Amateur UHF transceiver, and the received signal was analyzed using a Signal Hound USB-SA44B Signal Analyzer linked to a Dell Inspiron laptop computer. Power was supplied using 12 V storage tanks.

We performed a wider range of experiments than MW reported. We fi rst tested the antennas indoors, over distances of less than 10 m, with and without the polarizer–analyzer arrays, with the ball antennas as well as half-wave dipoles in vertical and horizontal position. The transmit–receive characteristics of the ball antennae were compared with those of half-wave dipoles. We mapped the radiation pattern of the ball antenna at close range as a function of angle from the apex of the ball.

Next we conducted full-scale tests outdoors, increasing the Tx-Rx distance in 2 m increments at smaller distances, then in larger increments at greater distances. Available space limited our Tx-Rx separation to a maximum of 90 m. We also measured signal strength as a function of angle, with the Tx ball antenna fi xed in location and orientation while the Rx ball antenna was moved to positions around it, always with the apex of the Rx antenna pointed toward the Tx antenna. Again this test was performed both with and without the polarizers in place. To provide an additional comparison, we set up the apparatus in an indoor corridor 30 m in length, and took readings every 2 m, both with and without the polarizers in place.

Results

We wrote a program to compute signal as a function of Tx-Rx distance from MW’s signal equation (Equation 1 above), and ran it fi rst with their input values, then again with our own input values. In this way we reproduced their graph of signal strength as a function of Tx-Rx distance over the distance of


10–1000 m, but also extended the range down to 1–10 m to reveal additional minima, shallower and closer together. With our parameters, we generated another graph that is superimposed on MW’s graph in Figure 1.

We did not observe the effects MW reported for the polarizer–analyzer arrays. Rotating the array did not produce the power null at a defl ection angle of 0° that they show in their Fig. 3. Indeed, the presence or absence of the polarizers had only a small effect on signal intensity as a function of distance. We conclude that they were not in fact polarizing the EM waves during the ball antenna experiments. They did, however, appear to function as polarizers when we used simple half-wave dipole antennae instead of the ball antennae. We further tested the effect of the polarizers by measuring signal intensity as a function of angle, with and without the polarizers in place, outdoors, with the zero angle representing the front face of the Tx antenna. In both cases there appears a peak intensity separated from a null by an angle of 45°. Without the polarizers, the peak intensity appeared at

Figure 1. The graphs were generated numerically using MW’s signal equation, using MW’s parameters (red), and adjusted for our actual input values (blue). The only changes were a reduced height for the transmitter and receiver, and a slightly higher frequency. We extended the study down to a minimum separation of 1 m, whereas MW used 10 m.


Figure 2. Polar plots of the signal strength when ball antennae are used for both transmit and receive functions, both without (above) and with (below) the polarizers in place. The angle of zero represents the frontal face of the Tx ball antenna. The main eff ect of the polarizers was to shift the angle at which the signal is strongest by π/2.


Figure 4. Data recorded outdoors with the transmitter and receiver in an east–west orientation over separations up to 90 m, again without the polarizer–analyzer arrays (blue), and with them in place (red). Some additional data points were obtained in the second case, and we believe the behavior of the signal around the 60 m separation was aff ected by external interference but have not been able to identify the source. Again, there is a general similarity in the shapes of the curves, with a few exceptions. A few additional data points were obtained with the arrays in place.

Figure 3. Results of an experiment conducted indoors, in an east–west oriented hallway of length 30 m. We present the signal intensity recorded both without the polarizer-analyzer arrays (blue), and with them in place (red). With a few exceptions, most notably the data point at a distance of 20 m, the shapes of the curves are similar.


an angle of 135°; with them, it appears at 45°. Thus the polarizers rotate the positions of the peak intensity and the null by an angle of 90° in the clockwise direction (Figure 2).

The most interesting measured quantity is the position and depth of the signal minima as functions of transmit–receive distances. We show these in Figure 3 for the indoor study; and in Figure 4 for the outdoor study.

For the various theoretical and experimental plots, the locations of these signal minima are as follows:

MW model, their values (read from their graph, to the nearest meter, 10–1000 m): 12, 16, 23, 40, 120 m

MW model, their parameters (from our numerical representation, to the nearest tenth of a meter, 1–1000 m): 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.8, 8.9, 11.8, 15.8, 22.8, 39.4, 120.7 m (Note that the last fi ve of these values correspond very closely to MW’s, as expected.)

MW model, our parameters (from our numerical representation, 1–1000 m): 2.2, 3.6, 5.6, 10.4, 32.9 m

MW experimental values (read from their graph, 10–1000 m): 24, 30, 40 mRębilas’ model (read from his graph, 10–1000 m): 25, 34, 43, 53, 61, 70.5,

81, 87 mIndoor experiment, without polarizers (1–30 m): 4.0, 12.6, 26.3, 29.8 mIndoor experiment, with polarizers (1–30 m): 5.9, 13.5, 19.5, 26.3, 29.8 mOutdoor experiment, without polarizers (1–90 m): 7.9, 15.8, 29.5, 60.3 mOutdoor experiment, with polarizers (1–90 m): 10.0, 17.8, 39.8, 60.3 m

Discussion

We agree with Bray and Britton that the nature of this experiment makes it impossible to control all variables, so we compensated by running experiments under a broader set of conditions than did MW: in different locations, with the antennae positioned in different orientations, outdoors and indoors, in order to identify some effects that might occur due to interference in a particular situation. Nevertheless, the present results are reported as preliminary: More complex and elaborate experiments are possible with this apparatus.

Here we compare MW’s theoretical graph, their experimental data, Rębilas’ theoretical graph, and our experimental data. When we modeled MW’s equation, we used a minimum Tx-Rx separation of 1 m rather than 10 m, and we tested the small-separation behavior experimentally by taking measurements down to a minimum separation of 2 m. We did not observe the close (<8 m) minima predicted by MW’s formula with our parameters (at least in the outdoor experiments). However, those minima are not as


deep as the more distant ones in MW’s simulation, and we may not have had the sensitivity to detect them.

MW’s experimental data do not show their predicted minima at 12 and 16 m, nor the deep minimum predicted at 120 m or any distinct minima after 40 m, but rather a long tail-off that roughly approximates an inverse-square relation until about 200 m which then falls off more rapidly. Rębilas claims that MW’s graph and their experiment are not a good match, and his graph correctly predicts MW’s observed fi rst null at 24 m. However, our observation of his graphs does not accord with his claim to have predicted the double minima at 32 and 39 m. He also predicts a series of unobserved smaller minima up to 200 m. Since Rębilas did not provide the actual parameters used in his calculation, we were unable to replicate his graph computationally and instead used his published graph.

The most pronounced difference between MW’s and Rębilas’ equations is that the former predicts deeper minima at increasing separations with increased Tx-Rx distance, while the latter predicts shallower minima at nearly equal separations with increased distance. It is possible that Rębilas’ smaller predicted minima of about 100 m may have been under MW’s detection threshold, but our experimental results suggest rather that successive minima do in fact become progressively deeper and farther apart with increasing Tx-Rx distance. This was observed indoors and outdoors, with or without polarizers in place. This result accords at least roughly with MW’s predictions, but is incompatible with Rębilas’ simulation, and we do not see his theory as providing a better match either to MW’s data or to ours. Although his explanation is theoretically plausible, we conclude that his proposed ground plasma currents were not a major contributor to the signal that we observed.

Although our experiments show some general similarities to MW’s calculations and experiments, the detailed patterns of minima are quite different. Most likely, the difference between the indoor and outdoor runs is due largely to environmental factors (possible presence of conducting materials, etc.). As explained above, the “polarizer–analyzers” did not function as such in any experiment in which the ball antennae were used for Tx and Rx: They did not null the signal in any orientation. Rather, their effect seemed comparable to the indoor–outdoor differences: They changed the shape of the response curve, and shifted the positions and depths of the minima somewhat. This result suggests that a process other than that described by MW was at work here. In both the indoor and outdoor experiments, a deep signal minimum at a distance of 19.5 m (indoors) and 39.8 m (outdoors) was observed only when the polarizers were used. We cannot explain this minimum at present.


Conclusion

Classical electrodynamics as formulated in Maxwell’s equations does not admit longitudinal EM radiation propagating in free space. In agreement with Bruhn, Bray and Britton, and Burko, our reading of MW’s theory suggests that it is internally fl awed and that it provides no compelling rationale for questioning the foundations of classical electrodynamics. Nevertheless, MW’s experiment was of a clever design, and amid speculation as to the true cause of their observed results, it befi t us to build the apparatus and conduct their experiment ourselves, along with additional experiments that could further illuminate the subject. While the experiment is diffi cult to control and we observed evidence of environmental interference, one pattern emerged consistently: The observed signal minima become deeper and farther apart with increasing Tx-Rx distance.

Modeling MW’s equation with our input data generates fewer minima, although they still follow the pattern of increasing depth and separation with increasing distance. Because we used a frequency close to MW’s, we expect that the lower height of the antennae was a signifi cant factor in this difference. Although we reject MW’s theoretical explanation, we note that that their equation does predict the important common feature of minima with increasing depth and separation with increasing Tx-Rx distance. Meanwhile, the effects we observed were completely incompatible with Rębilas’ simulation. While his theory of ground plasma currents contains no scientifi c mistakes and is certainly plausible, we must conclude that it cannot be a major contributor to the observed signal.

Because our principal purpose was to build the apparatus, perform the experiments, and compare our results to MW’s theory and experiment as well as to Rębilas’ explanation, we did not attempt to develop a theoretical model for the signal. Their theory, however, must still be addressed. Concerning the theory of the ball antenna, MW write that

The spherically symmetric current density J within the ball, that gives rise to the pulsating surface charge, is divergenceless, • J = 0; so • A = 0 and × A = 0; and no transverse wave can arise.

Bray and Britton note that such a divergenceless source contradicts the

continuity equation • J = since it would require that the oscillating

charge density be zero. Hence if • J = 0 at the source, no EM wave can arise. Since the ball antenna is clearly emitting EM radiation, we conclude that a very different process must give rise to these waves. We are working to derive a theoretical model for the fi eld pattern of the ball antenna for

t


future publication. It is our expectation that such a model will depend very sensitively on the point within the ball antenna at which it is actually driven.

Some methodological concerns remain as well. MW performed no statistical analysis either on the data acquisition itself or on the comparison between the acquired data and the simulations. Instead they simply “eyeballed” the results, and for the present we have done the same. While this is in part understandable due to the nature of the experiment and the diffi culty involved in controlling the environment, an appropriate statistical analysis might provide additional insight into the results. We are currently looking into the possibility of developing appropriate statistical methods both for analyzing the data and for quantifying the comparison between data and theory.

We are planning to conduct more experiments with this apparatus, and we invite collaboration from others interested in this issue.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the College of Arts & Sciences at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

References

Bray, J. R., & Britton, M. C. (2004). Comment on “Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves” by C. Monstein and J. P. Wesley. Europhysics Letters, 66(1), 153–154.

Bruhn, G. W. (2002). Can longitudinal electromagnetic waves exist? Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 16(3), 359–362.

Burko, L. M. (2008). Transversality of electromagnetic waves in the calculus-based introductory physics course. European Journal of Physics, 29, 1223–1234.

Kühlke, D. (2008). “Scalar wave eff ects according to Tesla” and “Far range transponder” by K. Meyl. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 22(2), 227–232.

Meyl, K. (2001). Scalar waves: Theory and experiments. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 15(2), 199–205.

Monstein C., & Wesley, J. P. (2002). Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves. Europhysics Letters, 59(4), 514–520.

Monstein, C., & Wesley, J. P. (2004). Remarks to the Comment by J. R. Bray and M. C. Britton on “Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves.” Europhysics Letters, 66(1), 155–156.

Rębilas, K. (2008). On the origin of “longitudinal electrodynamic waves.” Europhysics Letters, 83(6), 60007.

Van Vlaenderen, K. (2003). http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&fi le=article&sid=465

Van Vlaenderen, K. (2005). http://freenrg.info/Physics/Scalar_Vector_Pot_And_Rick_Andersen/Scalar_Maths.htm

25


RESEARCH ARTICLE

The UFO Abduction Syndrome

TED DAVIS 8 Warbler Lane, Commack, NY 11725

DON C. DONDERI

Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Qué[email protected]

BUDD HOPKINS

Intruders Foundation, New York

Budd Hopkins died in August 2011, while this manuscript was in preparation. Davis and Hopkins developed the test described in this paper and Donderi collaborated with them to evaluate it. Portions of this work were presented as a poster in 2007 (Donderi, Hopkins, & Davis 2007).


Abstract—Some people say that they have been abducted by extrater-restrials. We obtained responses to 608 true–false questions from 52 self-reported abductees and compared their responses to those of 75 non-ab-ductee controls and to 26 simulators whom we asked to respond “as if” they had been abducted. The entire question set, as well as a subset of 65 ques-tions identifi ed by discriminant analysis, diff erentiated among self-reported abductees, controls, and simulators. This result helps to defi ne a state of mind that we call the UFO Abduction Syndrome.

Introduction

A nationwide survey led to the conclusion that perhaps two percent of Americans had experienced what the survey sponsors called the “UFO Abduction Syndrome” (Hopkins, Jacobs, & Westrum, 1992). The conclusion was based on “true” responses to four of fi ve questions that Hopkins and abduction researchers David Jacobs and Ron Westrum believed were positive indicators of that experience, and a “false” response to a single question intended to eliminate yea-sayers or “wannabes.” The Roper Poll tested almost six thousand households with these questions during three stratifi ed random sampling surveys completed in 1991. The six abduction-related questions were integrated with other questions on lifestyle, political

26 Ted Davis, Don C. Donderi, and Budd Hopkins

opinions, and the like, so the indicator questions did not stand out as a separate category, and UFO abductions were not mentioned by the pollsters. The startling conclusion from this poll motivated Hopkins and Davis to develop the more comprehensive—and more intensive—screening test discussed here. The test distinguishes the mental state of people reporting that they were abducted by aliens from the mental state of people not reporting an abduction, and also from the mental state of people taking the test “as if” they had been abducted by aliens. The test, called the American Personality Inventory, may help to better defi ne the UFO Abduction Syndrome.

The UFO abduction syndrome has been evaluated as real by Hopkins (1996, 1987, 1981) and Jacobs (2000, 1992, 1998), among others. It has also been explained as the reinstatement of birth trauma (Lawson, 1988), as sadomasochistic fantasy (Newman & Baumeister 1996), and as fantasy-proneness leading to a failure to distinguish between imagination and reality (Clancy, 2005). It has also been a theme of fi lm and TV fi ction (The X-Files, Taken).

Ex Post Facto Reasoning

We cannot know whether any measured difference between alien abduction reporters and controls caused the reported abduction experience or whether the measured differences were caused by the reported experience. No research, including ours, answers—or can answer—this question. But in order to provide a context for our work, we start by reviewing some of the more substantial research on personality aspects of self-reported abductees1 that may be relevant to understanding our own results.

Bloecher, Clamar, and Hopkins (1985) obtained the cooperation of fi ve male and four female abductees, each of whom was asked to not mention or discuss the abduction experience during the interviews and tests carried out by clinical psychologist Elisabeth Slater, who was led to believe that she was participating in a study on “creativity.”

She administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), the Rorschach Test, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to each of the nine participants. The WAIS is a widely used test that measures general knowledge and cognitive ability. The TAT and Rorschach tests are “projective tests” which require the testee to describe in his or her own words what is seen in the series of Rorschach “ink blots” and what he or she experiences while looking at the generally more realistic images of the TAT. The MMPI is a 567-item true–false test whose answers are used to construct a psychological profi le of each respondent on a series of scales that refl ect potential sources

The UFO Abduction Syndrome 27

of personality disturbance. All of the participants had high average or above-average intelligence as measured by the WAIS. None demonstrated psychopathology as demonstrated by the MMPI. All nine had been to college and three had been to graduate school, and they were employed in occupations that ranged from secretary to college instructor, to corporation lawyer, to director of a chemical laboratory.

The interviews, TAT, and Rorschach test results led Slater to describe the nine people as “distinctive, unusual, and interesting subjects . . . including some who were downright ‘eccentric’ or ‘odd.’” Slater summarized her conclusions as follows:

In sum, the formal test results support the earlier stated clinical im-pression that one has a group of unusual and interesting personalities characterized by relatively high intellectual ability and richly evocative and charged inner worlds. At their best they are highly inventive, creative, and original. At their worst, they are beset by intense emotional upheaval . . . Another factor common to the nine subjects in terms of emotional func-tioning is a modicum of what is technically termed narcissistic disturbance. It is manifest along at least three dimensions: identity disturbance, lowered self-esteem, relative egocentricity and/or lack of emotional maturity . . . It may also be felt very concretely in terms of impaired body image and/or somatic concerns about one’s bodily integrity. (Slater 1983:21–22)

After being told about the experience common to her nine subjects, Slater wrote,

The fi rst and most critical question is whether our subjects’ reported experiences could be accounted for strictly on the basis of psychopathol-ogy, i.e. mental disorder. The answer is a fi rm no. In broad terms, if the re-ported abductions were confabulated fantasy productions, based on what we know about psychological disorders, they could only come from patho-logical liars, paranoid schizophrenics, and severely disturbed and extraor-dinarily rare hysteroid characters subject to fugue states and/or multiple personality. . . not one of the subjects, based on test data, falls into any of these categories . . . In other words, there is no apparent psychological ex-planation for their reports. (Slater 1983: 33–34)

Slater’s report is the fi rst and the most thorough systematic evaluation of the mental state of people reporting being abducted by aliens.

Ring and Rosing (1990) analyzed results from a mail survey of 264 people solicited (with about a fi fty percent response rate) from two communities of interest. One hundred thirty-six respondents had either reported a UFO experience or were simply interested in UFOs. They were


drawn from mailing lists provided by four different UFO researchers. One hundred twenty-eight respondents had either reported a near-death experience (NDE) or were simply interested in NDEs. They were from Ring’s mailing lists or from those of the International Association for Near-Death Studies. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were women. They completed nine questionnaires which, in addition to basic demographic information, queried experiences and interests, childhood experiences, home environments, tendencies toward psychological dissociation, awareness of paranormal phenomena, life changes, religious beliefs, and opinions about the import of UFOs and NDEs.

The UFO experiencer and the NDE experiencer groups both reported more childhood abuse and trauma than did either of the two groups that were just interested in UFOs or NDEs. Although all the groups were about equal on the Ring and Rosing measures of fantasy-proneness, the UFO experiencers reported more awareness than the other groups of what Ring and Rosing describe as “alternate realities.”

Parnell and Sprinkle (1990) reported data collected over an 18-year period from 225 respondents (37% male) who wrote to Sprinkle, a psychologist, about UFOs and had subsequently completed a mail survey. Each respondent completed the 16PF personality index—another personality questionnaire—and the MMPI, and they also described their UFO experience. The respondents were divided into fi ve groups based on whether they reported

1) interest in UFOs but no experience 2) a sighting of a UFO as a “light or object in the sky” 3) a sighting of what appeared to be a spacecraft 4) a sighting of a UFO occupant5) an abduction

The respondents were also classifi ed based on whether they reported communication between themselves and an extra-terrestrial. (It follows, but was not stated in the report, that most of these people would have been in groups 3 to 5.) Neither the average MMPI scores nor the average 16PF scores showed evidence of psychopathology. Nor were there score profi le differences across the fi ve sighting groups.

Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and Blatterbauer (1991) studied 27 people who reported having been taken against their will from normal surroundings by non-human beings, taken to a structure that was assumed to be a spacecraft, and questioned by the occupants either vocally or telepathically. These people responded to a mail questionnaire by completing the Inventory of


Childhood Memories and Imaginings (IMCI) (Barber & Wilson 1982), which is a test that measures fantasy-proneness. They also took the MMPI, the Creative Imagination Scale (CIS) (Wilson & Barber 1978), and a questionnaire that recorded demographics and information about a variety of experiences. The data were augmented by the results of eight more abductees who completed only the IMCI. The average fantasy-proneness score over all 35 respondents was within the normal population range. Two respondents had elevated scores, which is the same proportion found in the normal population.

Personality scale scores from all 19 subjects completing the MMPI were largely within the normal range, but further analysis of the test scores divided the respondents into two distinct groups. One group of 11 people was normal on all scales. A second group of eight people had higher than average scores on seven of the nine MMPI personality scales and a lower than average score on another. This second group also reported a much higher frequency of childhood sexual abuse.

Spanos, Cross, Dickson, and DuBreuil (1993) studied 176 people invited to his laboratory by ads in local papers. One ad invited people “who have seen U.F.O.s” to contact the researcher. Another ad, as well as a classroom recruitment, sought volunteers “for a personality study” (Spanos et al. 1993:625). Spanos et al. compared four groups:

1) 31 people who experienced something like “a craft seen close up” or “missing time”

2) 18 people who saw “lights or objects in the sky that appear to be unusual”

3) 53 people, recruited through a newspaper ad, with no UFO experiences 4) 74 undergraduates with no UFO experience, who received course

credit for being tested

Everyone was given 20 different tests including questionnaires about UFO beliefs and paranormal experiences, the MMPI schizophrenia scale, short IQ measures, and other personality measures that included assessments of fantasy-proneness. The two groups with UFO experiences were not signifi cantly different from the other two groups on any of the tests of mental health or emotional stability. Spanos et al. write that “these fi ndings provide no support whatsoever for the hypothesis that UFO reporters are psychologically disturbed.” The groups did differ on intelligence. The “non-intensive” UFO group scored higher than all the other groups, and the student control group scored higher than the newspaper-recruited control group. Spanos et al. point out that the UFO groups did differ from


the two control groups in one characteristic: “The fi nding that most clearly differentiated the UFO groups from the comparison groups was the belief in UFOs and in the existence of alien life forms” (Spanos et al. 1993:629). A likely result of observing what you think is an extraterrestrial spaceship or an extraterrestrial life form would be to decide that it is real.

Clancy, McNally, Schacter, Lenzenweger, and Pitman (2002:456) also recruited people to their study by advertising in newspapers, fi rst for “people who may have been contacted or abducted by space aliens” and then for “people to participate in a memory study.” Eleven people reported conscious memories of an alien abduction following waking up paralyzed at night. Nine people thought they might have been abducted but did not consciously remember it. Thirteen people who did not claim to have been abducted were the control group. Everyone completed measures designed to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, dissociative experiences, hypnotic susceptibility, and schizotypal aspects of personality. All of them were then tested on a version of a test for “false memory” (the Deese/Roediger–McDermott paradigm, Roediger & McDermott 1995). This test presents participants with spoken lists of words having a common theme (e.g., candy, sugar, taste, nice) followed fi rst by a recall test (“say the words that you heard before”) and then by a recognition test presented as a list (“check off the words on this list that you heard before”). The checkoff list includes a semantically similar word (e.g. sweet) that was not spoken. The false memory error is to respond by including the semantically similar word in spoken recall or to check it off on the word-recognition list.

The 20 people who said that they had been abducted by aliens made more false memory mistakes than did the controls. The group that consciously recalled an abduction made more false memory mistakes than the abduction group without conscious recall. The two abduction groups had higher schizotypical personality measures than the controls. In addition, whether you were an abductee or a control, a higher score on the absorption scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Magical Ideation scale, the PTSD measure, and the dissociative experiences scale all predicted more false recall (and to a lesser extent, more false recognition) on the memory test.

McNally, Lasko, Clancy, Macklin, Pitman, and Orr (2004) recruited six women and four men (average age 48) reporting having been abducted by aliens. All of them had close to clinical levels of PTSD. All of them reported sleep paralysis that they associated with the presence of aliens. Twelve controls from the community (average age 50) were not assessed for PTSD, but the abductee sample was much higher on scales of absorption and trait anxiety than the control sample.


The experimenters prepared two short narratives recapitulating experiences that each of the abductees had reported to the researchers. Three other scripts were prepared: a non-abduction but stressful script, an emotionally positive script, and an emotionally neutral script. Each subject was instrumented to record heart rate, skin conductance, and EMG. Then each abduction subject and a matched control listened to the fi ve scripts provided for that abductee. The subjects were given relaxation instructions and then were asked to visualize the script as they listened to it, were asked to imagine each script after having heard it, and then were instructed to relax before hearing the next script. The physiological measures collected during each script and the questionnaire responses collected after each script showed that the abductees reacted with much greater emotional stress than did the linked control subjects not only to the abduction scripts, which were based on their own experiences, but also to the stress-inducing but non-abduction-related scripts. Their physiological responses were on a par with those of PTSD patients’ response to scripts describing their own trauma.

Hough and Rogers (2007) posted notices on UFO/abduction websites and called people they knew to have reported an abduction in order to obtain a sample of 26 abduction reporters. They also obtained 26 control subjects who did not report abductions, from the English cities of Preston and Liverpool. Each group contained 20 women and 6 men. The groups were similar demographically except that the abductees had slightly less formal education. Each person completed four self-report measures at home and returned the results by mail. The measures were:

1) an alien abduction experience scale, summing the number of abduction experiences of each person

2) a fantasy-proneness scale called the Creative Experiences Question-naire

3) the Self-report emotional intelligence test4) the Ten-Item personality inventory, a short test that locates each

respondent on the “Big Five” personality dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience.

Except for the expected differences on the scale measuring abduction experiences, there were no signifi cant differences between the two samples on the measures of fantasy-proneness, emotional intelligence, or overall personality profi le.


Summary of the Studies

Slater’s nine abductees, the eleven MMPI–normal abductees of Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and Blatterbauer, Spanos et al.’s 31 people who had “seen a craft close up” or who had experienced “missing time,” and Hough and Rogers’ 26 abductees were all within the normal range on the tests used to assess them, including tests of intelligence, the MMPI, other general personality measures, and tests of fantasy-proneness. These 77 “normal” people reported 77 very abnormal experiences. Parnell and Sprinkle’s sample of 225 people included people who reported seeing a craft “close up,” or an occupant, or an abduction, and their sample group averaged within the normal range on the MMPI.

Other abductees were less psychologically normal. Eight of Rodeghier et al.’s abductees had MMPI scores well beyond the normal range on eight of nine scales, and they also reported experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Ring and Rosing’s UFO experiencers reported more childhood sexual abuse than the non-experiencers in their sample. Clancy et al.’s 13 abductees scored higher than normal on a scale of schizotypy, and also produced more “false positives” in a memory test than did controls. And ten other abductees in the McNally et al. study tested at barely sub-clinical levels of PTSD and responded with extreme physiological measures when listening to accounts of their own abduction narratives.

The meaning of “abductee” varies over these studies from the one extreme of someone independently contacting an abduction researcher to the other extreme of having answered a newspaper or website advertisement for research subjects, with a minimum of explanation. This adds to the uncertainty of who—as well as what—is being measured. The purpose of our study was to evaluate a new test that might be able to distinguish among three groups of people. The fi rst group is people claiming to have been abducted by aliens and who were subsequently interviewed and studied by abduction researchers. The second group is people not claiming to have been abducted by aliens and who were recruited to take the test thinking that the researchers were collecting normalizing data for a new personality inventory. No mention was made to them about UFOs, aliens, or alien abductions before they took the test. The third group were “simulators” who were primed with leading questions about UFOs and alien abductions and then asked to pretend, based on their cultural knowledge of the abduction phenomenon, to have been abducted and to answer the questions on the test “as if” they had experienced an alien abduction.


Method

The American Personality Inventory

The American Personality Inventory (API) consists of 608 true–false questions relating to attitudes and emotions that we thought might be modifi ed by experiencing an alien abduction. Abduction researchers assume that not all abduction experiences are consciously recalled, so no API question actually mentions an abduction experience. Instead, the questions were designed to defi ne and measure an emotional and cognitive profi le that characterizes someone who had experienced an abduction, whether or not it was consciously remembered. The test was constructed by Davis and Hopkins on the model of the well-known Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Its name was chosen to be unrelated to the UFO or abduction phenomena.

The questions were organized into 23 non-independent scales. Each scale included statements whose answer would contribute to defi ning a characteristic mental attitude that might be produced by an abduction experience. Table 1 includes the scale titles, the total number of questions contributing to each scale, and a typical scale question. Answering each question in the direction (true or false) that contributed to the scale increases the scale score by 1; answering the question in the other direction decreases the score by 1. The normalized scale score was the sum over questions divided by the number of questions, making the maximum score +1 and the minimum, –1. The pencil-and-paper version of the API consisted of an 18-page question booklet and a fi ve-page answer sheet where a T or F was circled to respond to each question. The computer-presented test prompted the user to click a button to display each question in order. It then recorded both the answer (T or F) to the question and the elapsed time in seconds from when the question was presented to when it was answered. No use was made of the elapsed time information in this study.

Participants

Fifty-two abductees (26 men and 26 women) were recruited among people who had reported abductions to Hopkins and Davis or to several other abduction researchers. Twenty abductees recalled their abduction experience spontaneously without hypnosis while 32 had undergone one or more regressive hypnosis sessions before the API was administered. Twenty-two non-abductee controls were recruited by Hopkins and Davis from the New York City area and 53 controls were recruited by Donderi and his students from the Montréal area. All the controls said (after their test was completed) that they had never experienced a UFO abduction.


TABLE 1

Scales of the American Personality Inventory (API) with the Number of Questions in the Scale, a Typical Scale Question,

and the Score (T or F) That Adds to the Abductee Profi le

Scale N Typical Question Score

Fear 49 I am more afraid of the dark than anyone my age should be. (T)

Animal 18 People who talk to animals instead of other people are annoying. (F)

Fake 18 Simple medical procedures always make me anxious. (T)

Medical 29 All doctors lie to you. (T)

Wannabe 23 I fi nd it almost impossible to fl y in an airplane. (T)

Anomalies 62 I have seen an unusual fog or haze in my home. (T)

Wrong 108 If my employer were to know everything about me, I would immediately lose my job.

(T)

Sleep 37 I avoid sleep until I can no longer function without it. (T)

Sexual 35 I fi nd talking about sex to be enjoyable. (T)

Dreams 66 In my dreams I often picture my own bedroom. (T)

Break-in 18 I am very afraid of someone breaking into my house at night. (T)

Missing 19 Someone in my life has witnessed my being unexplainably missing for a period of time.

(T)

Environment 21 The oceans aren’t as polluted as we have been led to believe. (F)

Helplessness 20 If you just do your best everything usually works out in the end. (F)

Babies 27 People who don’t like to hold babies are strange. (F)

Insect 17 I am no more afraid of insects than other people are. (F)

Water 16 The problem with swimming in groups is that you can’t trust the others you are with.

(T)

Clowns 18 One of the best parts of the circus is seeing the funny shows put on by the clowns.

(F)

Eyes 11 I have trouble making eye contact with others. (T)

Light 6 A white room lit by a bright unseen light source would be relaxing. (F)

Child 42 As a child I often experienced great sadness for no particular reason. (T)

Playmate 14 When I was a child I never had an imaginary friend. (F)

Poison 8 I have a dim memory of once being nearly poisoned. (T)


Twenty-six simulators were recruited by Donderi and his students from the Montréal area. The simulators also said that they had never experienced an alien abduction. The age and gender distribution of each group is reported in Table 2.2

TABLE 2

Participant Age, Gender, and Scores on the American Personality Inventory (API)

Group Participants Age API scores

Men Women Average Range SD Average SD

Abductees 25 27 43 21–60 9.8 −0.11 0.23Controls 34 41 30 19–54 14.3 −0.54 0.11

Simulators 5 21 30 19–69 12.4 0.12 0.50

The API was administered to the 52 abductees by several abduction researchers.3 The control subjects were told only that we were collecting normative data for a new personality inventory. The simulator subjects completed two short questionnaires before they completed the API. The fi rst questionnaire, called the Media Exposure Questionnaire, included a long list of UFO and abduction-related books, fi lms, and TV series. We asked the simulators to place a check by all of them that they had read or seen, and to add any that we had missed on blank lines at the bottom of the questionnaire. The second questionnaire, called the Unusual Personal Experiences Questionnaire, actually consisted of the questions from the Roper Poll survey described earlier (Hopkins, Jacobs, & Westrum, 1992). It asked about the participants’ own experiences (had you seen a UFO, had you experienced “missing time”, etc.—none of the simulators reported any unusual personal experiences). After the simulators had completed those questionnaires, they were asked to use their own knowledge gained through media exposure to answer the API questions “as if” they had been abducted.

Administering the API

The API was administered as a paper-and-pencil test to the 52 abductees and 22 non-abductee controls from New York and to 19 of the 53 controls tested in Montréal. It was presented on a computer to 34 of the Montréal controls and to all 26 of the simulators tested in Montréal. Either version of the test took between 45 minutes and one hour to administer. The results were tabulated and analyzed by Donderi.


Results

The simulators’ mean scale score was higher than the abductees’ mean scale score on 21 of the 23 API scales. The abductees were higher than the simulators on the other two scales. The control participants scored lower than either the abductees or the simulators on all of the scales (Figure 1, Table 3). The answer (T or F) to each question was scored as conforming to (+1) or deviant from (−1) the expected abduction profi le. The average score for each participant across all questions ranged from a maximum possible +1 to a minimum possible −1. Each participant’s average score across all 608 questions was treated as the independent variable in an analysis of variance (SAS general linear model) that compared the mean test score across groups using the most conservative tests (type III sums of squares) available in the model. There were signifi cant differences between the participant groups, and planned comparisons showed that the mean of each

Figure 1. Scale Scores on the American Personality Inventory for the abductee, simulator, and control groups.

Sc

ale

Scale Score


group was signifi cantly different from the means of the other groups (Table 4). A t-test comparison between the mean scores of those abductees who had experienced hypnotic regression before taking the API (Mean = −0.09, SD = .23) and those who recalled their abduction experience spontaneously and took the API without previous hypnotic regression (Mean = −0.15, SD = .24) showed that there was no signifi cant difference between the two groups of abductees (t = 0.94, df = 40, ns).

TABLE 3

American Personality Inventory Scale Scores for the Abductee, Control, and Simulator Groups

Scale Abductees (A) Controls (C) Simulators (S) Order

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Animal 0.51 0.40 0.08 0.36 0.26 0.49 ASCAnomalies 0.16 0.47 −0.77 0.15 0.30 0.66 SACBabies −0.12 0.44 −0.52 0.27 −0.09 0.62 SACBreak −0.13 0.49 −0.64 0.31 0.20 0.71 SACChild 0.00 0.36 −0.65 0.17 0.18 0.54 SACClowns −0.17 0.51 −0.49 0.32 0.15 0.63 SACDreams −0.06 0.40 −0.76 0.15 0.07 0.59 SACEnvironment 0.39 0.37 0.01 0.29 0.27 0.42 SACEyes −0.06 0.50 −0.57 0.24 0.21 0.59 SACFake −0.36 0.26 −0.40 0.30 −0.37 0.35 ASCFear −0.01 0.38 −0.59 0.22 0.23 0.59 SACInsect 0.01 0.31 −0.15 0.29 0.19 0.37 SACHelpless −0.10 0.40 −0.40 0.30 0.23 0.63 SACLight 0.29 0.41 −0.32 0.24 0.19 0.48 ASCMedical 0.09 0.54 −0.65 0.28 0.20 0.68 SACMissing −0.42 0.56 −0.86 0.21 0.33 0.75 SACPlaymate −0.65 0.36 −0.76 0.25 −0.03 0.80 SACPoison −0.76 0.39 −0.94 0.15 −0.01 0.89 SACSexual −0.21 0.47 −0.60 0.27 −0.01 0.69 SACSleep −0.13 0.41 −0.71 0.18 0.12 0.68 SACWannabe −0.66 0.28 −0.85 0.16 −0.07 0.65 SACWater −0.31 0.47 −0.51 0.32 0.00 0.62 SACWrong 0.11 0.38 −0.48 0.24 0.27 0.54 SAC


Discriminant Analysis

Using stepwise discriminant analysis as a statistical tool, we sought to fi nd a subset of questions that would distinguish among the three groups. We found two linear discriminant functions, based on a subset of 65 questions, that discriminated perfectly among the 153 subjects across the three groups. The values assigned to each subject on the two canonical discriminant variables are shown in Figure 2. The 65 computer-presented discriminant analysis questions (along with an additional 15 “fi llers” added to lengthen the test, but not included in the scoring) can be administered in less than one-half hour. Since the API is intended as a screening test, the short form has practical advantages.4

Discussion and Conclusions

Our study shows that the API separates people thought by several abduction researchers to have experienced an alien abduction from people who profess no knowledge or suspicion about having been abducted, and from people who we asked to simulate having had an abduction experience. Our simulators “stand in” for people trying to fool researchers or the public by claiming that they have been abducted by aliens, but they do not “stand in” for self-deluded abductees.

We have no data from our API respondents on the MMPI, other personality tests, intelligence tests, or tests of fantasy-proneness, so we cannot directly relate their API performance to the signifi cant personality variables identifi ed in some of the earlier studies reported here. The most challenging counterexamples defi ned by the previous studies are the abductees tested by Clancy et al., who make more substitution errors than controls in false memory tests, and the abductees tested by several

TABLE 4

Analysis of Variance: Total Score on the American Personality Inventory

Mean Square F p

Between groups 5.449 82.33 <.0001Within groups 0.066

Planned comparisons among groups

Abductees versus controls 5.696 86.07 <.0001Abductees versus simulators 14.65 14.65 0.0002Controls versus simulators 8.596 129.87 <.0001


researchers reporting high rates of childhood sexual abuse. We do not know whether any of the 52 abductees tested in our study fall into either of those groups.

Twenty of our 52 abductees (9 men and 11 women) reported their experiences by unaided recall before taking the API. The other 32 abductees underwent hypnotically induced memory retrieval that elicited the abduction report before they took the API. Based on their API scores, these two subgroups were indistinguishable. Therefore hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool did not infl uence the API score of the abductees, nor did it infl uence the API’s separation of abductees from non-abductee controls and from simulators.

Because only a few witnesses claim to have seen someone abducted into a UFO (Hopkins 1996), an API score can place someone only with one of the response groups that were defi ned in this study. But the people with API

Ca

no

nic

al V

ari

ab

le 2

Canonical Variable 1

Figure 2. Separation of the abductee, control, and simulator groups on two canonical variables based on 65 questions from a discriminant analy-sis of the 608 questions of the American Personality Inventory.


scores in the range of the abductee group are like the twenty abductees who took the API before undergoing hypnosis. Those twenty abduction reports are therefore direct testimony based on consciously recalled experience.

Based on the results from our own abductees and data from the other researchers whose fi ndings were summarized earlier, we hypothesize that some abductees report abductions because they confuse fantasies based on popular culture with memories based on real events, either as a defense against remembering childhood abuse or because they are inclined to fantasize as a matter of personality style. But we also hypothesize that many of the people reporting an alien abduction experience who are found to be psychologically normal when tested afterward are reporting an experience that actually happened to them. There is more to learn about the personality characteristics of people who report an alien abduction experience, and more to learn about the experience itself, before either hypothesis can be confi rmed.

Ultimately the API can only serve to reinforce or weaken confi dence that someone reporting an abduction narrative has an emotional and attitude profi le like those of people reporting abduction narratives to researchers who found those narratives convincing. Deciding whether any of those narratives are true requires additional evidence. But it is an important decision. One verifi ed abduction will change what we know about our place in the universe.

Notes

1 Self-reported abductees will from here on simply be called abductees.2 The age, background, previous involvement with abduction researchers,

and other details about the abductees are available from the corresponding author ([email protected]).

3 The abductee participants were obtained and tested as follows: Hopkins, 20 men and 16 women; David Jacobs, 1 man and 9 women; John Carpen-ter, 2 men and 2 women; Ted Davis, 1 man; Oliver Kemenczky, 1 man.

4 We do not present either the 608-item full test or the 80-item shorter version (65 discriminant questions and 15 fi llers) here so as to maintain their confi dentiality, but we will send either test version to qualifi ed investigators who would like to use them. Contact the corresponding author ([email protected])

Acknowledgments

We thank Amanda Baker, Heather Pulman, Tamara Lagrandeur, Julia Bellissimo, Brian King, and Erin Friend for collecting much of the data


for this report while completing coursework in the McGill University Department of Psychology. This research was partly funded by a grant from the Orange County Chapter of the Mutual UFO Network, and we are grateful for their support. At the time the work was done, Davis and Hopkins were associated with the Intruders Foundation, New York, NY, and Donderi was at the Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal.

References

Barber. T. X., & Wilson, S. C. (1982). The fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. PSI research, 1(3), 94–116.

Bloecher, T., Clamar, A., & Hopkins, B. (1985). Summary Report on the Psychological Testing of Nine Individuals Reporting UFO Abduction Experiences. In Final Report on the Psychological Testing of UFO “Abductees.” Mt. Rainier, MD: Fund for UFO Research.

Clancy, S. (2005). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clancy, S. A., McNally, R. J., Schacter, D. L., Lenzenweger, M. F., & Pitman, R. K. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 455–461.

Donderi, D. C., Hopkins, B., & Davis, T. (2007). The Abduction Experience Is a Consistent Psychological Syndrome (poster). 19th Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science; Washington, DC; May 24–27, 2007.

Hopkins, B. (1981). Missing Time. New York: Ballantine Books.Hopkins, B. (1987). Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley Woods. New York: Random House. Hopkins, B. (1996). Witnessed: The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions. New York:

Simon & Schuster.Hopkins, B., Jacobs, D. M., & Westrum, R. (1992). The UFO Abduction Syndrome: A Report

on Unusual Experiences Associated with UFO Abductions, Based on the Roper Organization’s Survey of 5,947 Adult Americans. In Unusual Personal Experiences: An Analysis of the Data from Three Major Surveys Conducted by the Roper Organization. Las Vegas, NV: Bigelow Holding Corporation. pp. 9–17.

Hough, P. A., & Rogers, P. (2007). Individuals who report being abducted by aliens: Core experi-ences and individual diff erences. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality, 27(2), 139–161.

Jacobs, D. (1992). Secret Life: Firsthand Documented Accounts of UFO Abductions. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jacobs, D. (1998). The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. New York: Simon & Schuster.Jacobs, D. (Editor) (2000). UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge. Lawrence,

KS: University Press of Kansas. Lawson, A. (1988). A testable hypothesis for the origina of fallacious abduction reports: Birth

trauma imagery in CE III narratives. In M. Hynek, Editor, The Spectrum of UFO Research: The Proceedings of the Second CUFOS Conference; September 25–27, 1981, Chicago, IL: J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, pp. 71–98.

McNally, R. J., Lasko, N. B., Clancy, S. A., Macklin, M. L, Pitman, R. K., & Orr, S. P. (2004). Psychophysiological responding during script-driven imagery in people reporting abduction by space aliens. Psychological Science, 15(7), 493–497.

Newman, L. S., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Toward an explanation of the UFO abduction phenomenon: Hypnotic elaboration, extraterrestrial sadomasochism, and spurious memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7 (2), 99–126.

Parnell, J. O., & Sprinkle, R. L. (1990). Personality characteristics of persons who claim UFO experiences. Journal of UFO Studies, 2, 45–58.


Ring, K., & Rosing, C. J. (1990). The Omega project: A psychological survey of persons reporting abductions and other UFO encounters. Journal of UFO Studies (new series), 2, 59–98.

Rodeghier, M., Goodpaster, J., & Blatterbauer, S. (1991). Psychosocial characteristics of abductees: Results from the CUFOS abduction project. Journal of UFO Studies (new series), 3, 59–90.

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814.

Slater, E. (1983). Conclusions on Nine Psychologicals. In T. Bloecher, A. Clamar, & B. Hopkins, Final Report on the Psychological Testing of UFO “Abductees,” Mt. Rainier, MD: Fund for UFO Research.

Spanos, N., Cross, P. A., Dickson, K., & DuBreuil, S. C. (1993). Close encounters: An examination of UFO experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 624–632.

Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1978). The Barber Suggestibility Scale and the Creative Imagination Scale: Experimental and Clinical Applications. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21, 84–108.

43

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Description of Benveniste’s Experiments

Using Quantum-Like Probabilities

FRANCIS BEAUVAIS

91 Grande Rue, Sèvres 92310 [email protected]


Abstract—Benveniste’s experiments (also known as “memory of water” or “digital biology” experiments) remain unresolved. In some research areas, which have in common the description of cognition mechanisms and infor-mation processing, quantum-like statistical models have been proposed to address problems that were “paradoxical” in a classical frame. Therefore, the outcomes of the cognitive state of the experimenter were calculated for a series of Benveniste’s experiments using a quantum-like statistical model (i.e. a model inspired by quantum physics and taking into consideration superpo-sition of quantum states, non-commutable observables, and contextuality). Not only were the probabilities of “success” and “failure” of the experiments modeled according to their context, but the emergence of a signal from back-ground was also taken into account. For the fi rst time, a formal framework devoid of any reference to “memory of water” or “digital biology” describes all the characteristics of these disputed results. In particular, the diffi culties encountered by Benveniste (reproducibility of the experiments, disturbances after blinding) are simply explained in this model without additional ad hoc hypotheses. It is thus proposed that we see Benveniste’s experiments as the result of quantum-like probability interferences of cognitive states.

Keywords: Memory of water—quantum cognition—quantum-like prob-abilities—entanglement—experimenter eff ect—contextuality —nonlocal interactions

“There is no objective explanation of these observations.” —Maddox (1988a)

The Everlasting Story of the “Memory of Water”

The above quote of John Maddox, a former Editor of the journal Nature, is from the Editorial of the 30 June 1988 journal issue containing an article that shortly after became famous as the starting point of the “memory of water” controversy (Davenas et al. 1988). Actually, the story of the “memory of water” began in the early 1980s. Due to industrial contracts


44 Francis Beauvais

with two homeopathic fi rms, scientists from Unit 200 of INSERM (the French biomedical and public health research institution), led by Jacques Benveniste, assessed with biological models the effects of solutions obtained according to the principles of homeopathy. After serial ten-fold or hundred-fold dilutions, the probability of fi nding a biologically active molecule becomes close to zero in high dilutions. However, in some experiments with white blood cells containing polymorphonuclear basophils, a variation in basophil counts was observed repeatedly, thus suggesting that high dilutions had an effect on cells. Initially skeptical about homeopathy and its principles (from another age), Benveniste began to revise his opinion.

After several years of extensive experimental work, Benveniste convinced himself that trivial explanations such as contamination could not explain these odd results, and he decided to bring them to the attention of the scientifi c community. A long negotiation then began with the journal Nature in June 1986. Successive versions of an article were written, including new experiments requested by the reviewers. In its last version, the manuscript described experiments in which highly diluted immunoglobulins decreased the counts of basophils stained by a classical method and counted under a microscope. Meanwhile, two articles on the high dilutions were published by Benveniste’s team in other scientifi c journals (Davenas, Poitevin, & Benveniste 1987, Poitevin, Davenas, & Benveniste 1988). However, Nature’s Editor and reviewers of the manuscript continued to express their skepticism regarding the idea of a “biological effect without molecules.”

Unexpectedly, at the end of May 1988, John Maddox, the Editor of Nature, decided to publish the article for the next month provided that Benveniste accept an investigation into his laboratory (Davenas et al. 1988). Strangely, this investigation would take place after publication of the article. Details on the survey performed in Benveniste’s laboratory and on the whole story of the “memory of water” can be found elsewhere (de Pracontal 1990, Alfonsi 1992, Kaufmann 1994, Schiff 1998, Benveniste 2005, Beauvais 2007).

Maddox himself was a former theoretical physicist, and none of the investigators was a specialist in the research done in Benveniste’s laboratory or more generally had a background in biology. Indeed, the trio of investigators formed by Maddox had an a priori: They were certain that Benveniste acted in good faith, but that someone was playing tricks without his knowledge. The other investigators were Walter Stewart, an American chemist disputed in academic circles for his investigations on cases of scientifi c fraud, and the stage magician James Randi, star of many entertainment shows in the United States (and also debunker of pseudo-science). The role of Randi (as he himself said later) was to inconspicuously

Benveniste’s Experiments and Quantum-Like Probabilities 45

monitor the members of Benveniste’s laboratory (Beauvais 2007). On the third day of the inquiry, Randi had to go to the evidence: He did not observe any suspicious behavior. In addition, the experiments performed during these three days (including one blind experiment) confi rmed the results of the published article.

Consequently, for the next two days, the investigators decided to organize a new series of experiments, and they involved themselves in the experiments that they were supposed to control: Stewart not only blinded the experimental samples but also pipetted the cell suspensions containing stained basophils, which were then counted under a microscope by two members of Benveniste’s team. Despite repeated remarks on the poor quality of some cell samples, the investigators insisted that these counts be completed “for statistics” (Beauvais 2007). The results obtained with these latter experiments did not support the alleged effect of high dilutions. A few weeks later Nature published a report concluding that the results claimed in the article were a “delusion” and were the consequence of both observer bias and ignorance of statistical laws (Maddox 1988b, Maddox, Randi, & Stewart 1988). For many people, the report from Nature was the last word on the story of the “memory of water.” In the years following this harmful episode, Benveniste continued his research in this disputed area with a reduced team, using other biological systems and developing new devices as described in the next section.

From High Dilutions to “Digital Biology”

After the episode in 1988, some authors, including Benveniste’s team, attempted to reproduce the results of the Nature paper and published negative (Ovelgonne, Bol, Hop, & van Wijk 1992), ambiguous (Hirst, Hayes, Burridge, Pearce, & Foreman 1993), or positive results (Benveniste, Davenas, Ducot, Cornillet, Poitevin, & Spira 1991, Belon, Cumps, Ennis, Mannaioni, Sainte-Laudy, Roberfroid, & Wiegant 1999, Brown & Ennis 2001); see also the review in Ennis (2010). Meanwhile, Benveniste’s team explored other biological models that were hoped to be more persuasive than the basophil model. The most notable results were obtained fi rst with the isolated heart model and some years later with an in vitro coagulation model.

The results with the isolated heart model (using Langendorff apparatus) are very helpful to understand Benveniste’s issues with “reproducibility.” Less famous than the basophil experiments, these results nevertheless were published as abstracts and posters at international congresses from 1991 to 1999. Moreover, during the period 1992–1997, Benveniste and his team

46 Francis Beauvais

regularly organized “public demonstrations” where scientists were invited to blind experimental samples or fi les to convince themselves of the reality of the alleged phenomena. These demonstrations were carefully designed with a written protocol, and, after completion, the participants received a detailed report with raw data. Therefore, valuable data that could be analyzed were available.

All these experiments have been described in detail elsewhere (Beauvais 2007). In the present article, biological systems will be considered simply as black boxes with inputs and outputs. Indeed, the aim of the article is to describe the logical aspects and the underlying mathematical structures of these experiments.

Briefl y, the Langendorff apparatus allows for the maintaining of a rodent heart while different parameters (beat rate, coronary fl ow, muscular tension) are recorded continuously; the variations related to the addition of pharmacological agents are studied. Benveniste’s team focused on the fl ow rate of the coronary arteries, which initially appeared to respond signifi cantly to high dilutions. After each run, the intensity of fl ow change allowed discriminating “active” samples (10% or more of maximal variation of basal fl ow) from “inactive” samples (below 10% variation, i.e. not different from background noise).

The advantage of the isolated heart model (Langendorff apparatus) over the basophil model was the possibility of showing in real time the biological effect of high dilutions to scientists visiting the laboratory. Indeed, the changes of baseline fl ow (20%–30%) were easily seen in the series of tubes that collected (one tube per minute) the physiological solution from coronary circulation. However, the recurrent criticism of contamination of samples containing high dilutions was not discarded.

In 1992, Benveniste alleged that a low-frequency amplifi er allowed the “electromagnetic transfer” of the “activity” from a biologically active solution (inserted in an electric coil) to naïve water. Interestingly, this device could use water in a sealed vial. Therefore, explaining the observed effects by contamination was less relevant. New “progress” was accomplished in 1996 when Benveniste used a personal computer with a sound card to “record” and to store as a digital fi le the “activity” of a solution placed into the electric coil. The “replay” was performed in naïve water put inside an electric coil wired at the output of the sound card. Positive results comparable with those observed with high dilutions were obtained.

For Benveniste, this was a new era for biology and medicine, and he coined the expression “digital biology.” These new experiments, however, encountered more skepticism (if possible) than the previous high-dilution experiments. Further progress was achieved by positioning the electric coil


(which diffused the “electromagnetic information”) directly around the column of physiological liquid that perfused the isolated heart. With this modifi cation, the experiment could be piloted directly from the computer, without an intermediary water sample. The electromagnetic fi eld of the electric coil became the unique link between the computer and the apparatus. The contamination argument seemed to be defi nitively discarded.

Despite these successive improvements, however, an issue literally poisoned the demonstrations aimed to provide “proof” of the reality of the “memory of water.” As explained in the next section, this issue was more particularly evidenced after blinding of the experimental samples during the “public demonstrations.”

Contextuality as the Central Issue:

In-House Blinding vs. Blinding by Outside Observer

All participants in these experiments, including Benveniste himself, acknowledged that besides the very impressive, convincing, and “clean” experiments, other experiments cast doubt on the reality of the alleged phenomena (Benveniste 2005, Thomas 2007, Beauvais 2008, Poitevin 2008). This was particularly evident after blinding of samples—not for in-house blinding, which led to statistically signifi cant correlations, but for blinding during public demonstrations with “outside” observers. Even the early experiments with basophils were not free from blinding disturbances. Thus, the usual large and regular waves of biological activity related to high dilutions and routinely obtained by some teams became unnoticeable during large-scale blind experiments (Benveniste, Davenas, Ducot, Cornillet, Poitevin, & Spira 1991, Belon, Cumps, Ennis, Mannaioni, Sainte-Laudy, Roberfroid, & Wiegant 1999). With the Langendorff apparatus and with the coagulation model, the blinding issue became a central concern. Moreover, a phenomenon that was already suggested by basophil experiments became obvious: “Better” results were obtained with some “gifted” experimenters (Beauvais 2007).

Initially, it was proposed that uncontrolled parameters in the environment, such as electromagnetic waves or quality of water, were probably responsible for these discrepancies. Indeed, detecting a weak signal amid a noisy background could be the reason for poor results. In retrospect, however, it now appears that the diffi culties of reproducibility were unusual. This was particularly obvious during the “public demonstrations” that Benveniste organized to convince other scientists that the phenomenon he described was not imaginary. These demonstrations were usually performed in two steps. First, negative and positive samples were produced (e.g., high dilutions, samples of “informed water” or digital fi les) and were blinded

48 Francis Beauvais

(the initial label was replaced by a code) by an observer not belonging to Benveniste’s team. It is important to emphasize that some negative and positive samples were kept open. Second, the samples were brought back to Benveniste’s laboratory where the team tested all samples (blind and open-label) on the biological system. Note also that the samples kept open were nevertheless frequently blinded by a member of the team before being given to the experimenter dedicated to the testing. When all measurements were made, the results of the experiments were sent to the outside scientists who assessed the concordance of observed results with expected results.

In these demonstrations, the mean biological effects after repeated experiments (on several biological preparations) were usually clear-cut, and active samples were easily distinguished from inactive samples. However, the results of blind samples were almost always at random and did not fi t the expected results: Some samples with “control” labels were clearly active on the biological system whereas some samples with “active” labels had no signifi cant effect. Table 1 describes an example of an experiment involving a participating outside observer.

In a fi rst approach, it could be hypothesized that active samples had been “erased” by an external disturbing infl uence. However, it is more diffi cult to explain the mechanisms that transformed inactive samples into specifi c “active samples.” And even if we assume the hypothesis of a “noisy” environment, how do we explain the open samples (positive and negative samples), which were prepared, transported, and tested at the same time and in the same conditions as blind samples, giving systematically “correct” results (i.e. expected correlations between supposed causes and biological outcomes)?

After each failure of public demonstration, Benveniste’s team improved the experimental setting, and either open-label or in-house blind experiments confi rmed that “good” results were obtained with the new device or with the modifi ed experimental design. Nonetheless, despite the successive technical improvements of the different experimental systems, the weirdness persisted.

To avoid any interference with the environment (including the experi-menter), Benveniste’s team constructed an automatic robot analyzer based on a new promising biological model, the coagulation system. After fi lling it with consumables, the whole process was automatic, from the random choice of fi les (to be “played” to naïve water) to the printing of the results. At this time, Benveniste’s “digital biology” attracted the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), of the US Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology. In 2001, a multidisciplinary team was commissioned by DARPA to study these


TABLE 1

Example of Random Correlations between Labels and Biological Outcomes in an Experiment Involving

a Participating Outside Observer (Type-1 Observer)

Experimental Samples a BiologicalOutcome

Unblindingof Blind Files

Expected Biological Outcome

Blind fi les

File #1 Signal IN #2 No

File #2 Background IN #3 Yes

File #3 Signal AC #3 Yes

File #4 Background IN #1 Yes



File #7 Background AC #1 No

File #8 Background AC #1 No



Open fi les b

IN #A Background - Yes

IN #B Background - Yes

AC #C Signal - Yes

AC #D Signal - Yes

“Classical” positive control Signal - Yes

a For this experiment of “digital biology” (an avatar of “memory of water”) performed in September 1997, 10 blind fi les and 4 open-label fi les of digital recordings of diff erent samples were produced in a foreign laboratory and then blinded by the participating outside observer (type-1 observer) (Beauvais 2007, 2012). Five “active” (AC) labels and fi ve “inactive” (IN) labels were blinded; two IN and two AC labels were kept open. The 4 open-label fi les were nevertheless in-house blinded before measurements. In Benveniste’s laboratory, experiments were performed with each fi le and the associated biological outcome was recorded: either “background” (“↓”) (i.e. outcome below cutoff at 10) or signal (“↑”) (i.e. outcome above cutoff ). The biological device was a Langendorff apparatus, which allowed measuring the variations of an isolated rodent heart. After completion of the measurements in Benveniste’s laboratory, the results were sent to the participating outside observer who assessed the number of concordant pairs (IN with↓ and AC with↑ ) and discordant pairs (IN with ↑ and AC with ↓ ). This experiment is representative of many other “public” experiments detailed elsewhere (Beauvais 2007). Despite repetitive measurements for each fi le and coherence of the results for each fi le, blind fi les were associated randomly with “signal” (biological outcome >10) and “background” (biological outcome <10). In contrast, expected results were obtained with the in-house blind fi les. Even though such an experiment dismisses the hypothesis of “memory of water” or “digital biology,” the presence of signal remained puzzling.

b Labels kept open by the participating outside observer (type-1 observer), but nevertheless in-house blinded (type-2 observer) before measurement.

50 Francis Beauvais

potentially interesting experiments. After completion of the experiments performed in part with the help of Benveniste’s team, the experts concluded they could not confi rm that an effect related to “digital biology” was involved, while they did confi rm the importance of the experimenter for the outcome. Indeed, they suggested that unknown “experimenter effects” could explain these unusual results, but that a theoretical framework was necessary to understand them. They added: “Without such a framework, continued research on this approach to digital biology would be at worst an endless pursuit without likely conclusion, or at best premature” (Jonas et al. 2006).

The Diff erent Experimental Situations with or without Correlations

In our previous reappraisal of Benveniste’s experiments, we defi ned three experimental situations (open-label, in-house blinding, and blinding by a participating outside observer) that led to “success” or “failure” (Beauvais 2012). Table 2 summarizes the results of this reappraisal.

TABLE 2

Concordant and Discordant Pairs in Diff erent Experimental Conditionsin Benveniste’s Experiments with the Langendorff Apparatus

Experimental Situations Number of Experimental

Points

Outcome ↓(Background)

Outcome ↑(Signal)

P-Value a

Open-label experiments b

Label IN N=372 93% (CP) 7% (DP) <1 × 10−83

Label AC N=202 11% (DP) 89% (CP)

Experiments blinded by type-2 observer

Label IN N=118 91% (CP) 9% (DP) <1 × 10−26

Label AC N=86 15% (DP) 85% (CP)

Experiments blinded by type-1 observer

Label IN N=54 57% (CP) 43% (DP) 0.25

Label AC N=54 44% (DP) 56% (CP)

Summary of results presented in Beauvais (2012). Bold type numbers are statistically signifi cant concordant pairs. CP, concordant pairs; DP, discordant pairs; IN, “inactive” labels; AC, “active” labels.a Chi-square test.b See also Figure 1.


The open-label experiments led to “correct” correlations between labels (“inactive” or “active”) and device outcomes (background or signal). For open-label experiments, background was observed in 93% of the cases with “inactive” label, and signal was observed in 89% of the cases with “active” label (Table 2 and Figure 1).

In-house blind experiments, i.e. blinding performed by an “inside” observer, also led to signifi cant correlation. The “inside” observer will now be named type-2 observer. For experiments blinded by a type-2 observer, background was observed in 91% of the cases with “inactive” label, and signal was observed in 85% of “active” label cases.

Figure 1. Correlations of measurements on two parallel devices. These plots (574 pairs of measures) summarize a systematic analysis of

large-scale experiments performed from 1992 to 1996 by Benveniste’s team (Beauvais 2012). The limit between background and signal was set at 10. For these experiments each measurement was performed in duplicate on two devices (this was done to guarantee results). Note that the probability of obtaining a signal (with respect to the background) for a second measure was high if a signal (with respect to the background) was obtained for the fi rst measure. Even if “memory of water” is dismissed, we have to explain 1) how a signal emerged and 2) how a correlation was obtained.

52 Francis Beauvais

The difference of effect between “inactive” and “active” samples was statistically very signifi cant in these two experimental situations (no blinding, or blinding by type-2 observer) (Table 2). Therefore, these experiments were usually considered as successes; it was as if a causal relationship existed between the alleged causes and the outcomes.

The crucial issue was observed when the blinding of the samples was performed by a participating outside observer (e.g., the public demonstration described in Table 1). The participating outside observer will now be named type-1 observer. When all measurements had been carried out by the experimenter on the Langendorff apparatus, the results were sent by Benveniste’s team to the type-1 observer who held the code of the blinded samples and who compared the two series (biological outcomes and labels of the corresponding samples). In this situation, the biological outcomes (signal or background) were distributed at random according to the initial label (“inactive” or “active” samples) (Table 2). For these experiments, background was observed in 57% of “inactive” labels and signal in 56% of “active” labels. These experiments were thus usually considered as failures; the alleged relationship between labels and outcomes appeared broken.

In summary, correlations were evidenced either in open-label experiments or in experiments blinded by a type-2 observer; in sharp contrast, in blind experiments involving a type-1 observer, the correlations vanished. Nevertheless, in all cases, a signal emerged from background.

Benveniste’s Experiments Free of the Memory-of-Water Hypothesis

In our previous article, we analyzed the experiments with the Langendorff system, and we concluded that they did not support the hypothesis of the “memory of water” (Beauvais 2012). We did not reach this conclusion because the known physical properties of water did not support memory in this liquid as argued by some authors (Teixeira 2007), but simply because a subset of results from Benveniste’s experiments themselves dismissed this hypothesis.

In a fi rst step, we analyzed a set of experiments obtained by Benveniste’s team in the 1990s. We quantifi ed the relationship between “expected” effects (i.e. labels of the tested samples) and apparatus outcomes, and we defi ned the experimental conditions to observe signifi cant correlations. We observed that the results were amazingly identical despite the various “stimuli” thought to induce a signal (high dilutions, direct “electromagnetic transfer” from a biological sample, “electromagnetic transfer” from a stored fi le, and transfer of the “biological activity” of homeopathic granules to water). Moreover, a diversity of electronic devices was used, particularly electric coils with various technical characteristics. In other words, the dynamic range of the “measure apparatus” used to evidence “informed water” seemed to be


exceptionally large for the “input” but was nevertheless associated with a monotonous response for the “output.” What appeared to be the “cause” of the outcome was the “label” of the sample (“inactive” or “active”) and not the specifi c physical process that had supposedly “informed” the water.

We concluded that the results of these experiments were related to experimenter-dependent correlations, which did not support the initial “memory of water” hypothesis. Nevertheless, the fact that a signal emerged from background noise remained puzzling.

Therefore, in a second step, we described Benveniste’s experiments according to the relational interpretation of quantum physics (Beauvais 2012). This interpretation allowed for the elaboration of a fi rst quantum approach of Benveniste’s experiments: The emergence of a signal from background noise was described by the entanglement of the experimenter with the observed system.

Although our hypothesis did not defi nitely dismiss the possibility of “memory of water,” the experimenter-dependent entanglement was an attractive alternative interpretation of Benveniste’s experiments. However, quick decoherence of any macroscopic system is an obstacle to the general acceptance of such an interpretation.

In the next section, we propose a parallel between Benveniste’s experiments and classical interference experiments. This parallel allows for a description of a more complete formalism of Benveniste’s experiments.

The Single-Particle Interference Experiment

Single-particle quantum interference is one of the most important phenomena that illustrate the superposition principle and highlight the major difference between quantum and classical physics. The two-slit interferometer of Young can be used for one-particle interference experiments, but the Mach-Zehnder device has the advantage of ending only with two detectors (D1 and D2) and not with a screen (i.e. a great number of detectors) (Scarani & Suarez 1998). Figure 2 (upper drawing) depicts the Mach-Zehnder device. Light is emitted from a monochromatic light source: 50% of the light is transmitted by the beam splitter (BS1) in path T and 50% is refl ected in path R. In BS2, the two beams are combined and 50% of the light is transmitted by the beam splitter in detector D1 and 50% in detector D2.

If light is considered a wave, it can be calculated that waves from the two paths are constructive when they arrive in D1 and destructive in D2. Therefore, clicks after light detection are heard only in D1. This is indeed what experiment shows, and it is an argument for the wavy nature of light.

On the contrary, if we consider light a collection of small balls (photons), they should randomly go into path T or R (with a probability of

54 Francis Beauvais

0.5 for each path) and then in BS2 they go into D1 or D2 randomly (again with a probability of 0.5 for D1 or D2). As a consequence D1 should click in 50% of cases and D2 in 50% of cases.

However, if photons are emitted one by one (by decreasing light intensity), the interference pattern persists (100% of clicks in D1). This is a quite counterintuitive result. Even more astonishingly, this unexpected (nonclassical) behavior disappears if the initial path (T or R) is detected by

Figure 2. Single-particle interference in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with or without which-path measurement.


any means: Then either D1 or D2 clicks, each in 50% of cases (classical probabilities apply) (Figure 2, lower drawing).

We made a parallel between Benveniste’s experiments and the one-particle interference experiment, which appeared to have isomorphic underlying mathematical structures. Indeed, according to the context of the experiment, either only concordant pairs (equivalent to detection in D1) or both concordant/discordant pairs (i.e. equivalent to random detection by D1 and D2) were obtained (Figure 3 and Table 3).

TABLE 3

Parallelism between Single-Photon Interference Experiment with

Mach-Zehnder Interferometer and Benveniste’s Experiments

Interferometer

Experiment

Benveniste’s Experiments a

First path Path T AIN

Prob (path T) Prob (AIN)

Second path Path R AAC

22

Prob (path R) Prob (AAC)

Superposition

(quantum probabilities)Path T and Path R AIN and AAC

Outcome 1 100% detector D1 100% “concordant” pairs b

Outcome 2 0% detector D2 0% “discordant” pairs c

No superposition

(classical probabilities)

Path T or Path R AIN or AAC

Outcome 1 50% detector D1 50% “concordant” pairs b

Outcome 2 50% detector D2 50% “discordant” pairs c

↓ , background; ↑ , signal.

A, cognitive state of the experimenter; IN, “inactive” labels; AC, “active” labels; T, transmission; R, refl ection.a For an experiment with optimal correlations between labels and biological outcomes (and with )b AIN with A↓ or AAC with A↑ .c AIN with A or AAC with A↓

.

22

21

21

56 Francis Beauvais

Figure 3. Interpretation of Benveniste’s experiments as a consequence of quantum-like interferences (for an experiment with an optimal interference term).

If the sample labels are not blinded or blinded by a type-2 observer, then the cognitive state of A (described by the state vector | ψA ) is able to interfere with itself (as a single particle interferes with itself ) and the rate of correlated pairs is high. If a type-1 observer blinds the sample labels, then the cognitive state of A cannot interfere with itself (there is no superposition) and the rate of correlated pairs is not better than random. In both cases, the signal is observed.


The Quantum Formalism in Brief

The objective of our study is to describe the possible outcomes of the cognitive states of an experimenter in different contexts. Mathematically, a state is represented by a vector in a Hilbert space. Using the quantum formalism, the cognitive state of the experimenter is represented by the state vector | ψA , which summarizes all the information on the quantum system.

A key ingredient in the quantum formalism is the principle of super-position. According to this principle, the linear combination of any set of states is itself a possible state. Thus, if | A1 and | A2 are two possible states of the system, then | ψA = λ1 | A1 + λ2 | A2 also is a possible state of A (with λ1 and λ2 real or complex numbers). This is due to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation: Any linear combination of solutions to a particular equation will also be a solution to it.

Therefore, a physical system exists in all its particular and theoretically possible states. When it is “measured,” only one state among the possible states is observed by the experimenter. The quantum formalism states that the probability to observe | A1 is the square of the probability amplitude λ1 associated with this state.

An example of superposition that is directly observable is the inter-ference pattern observed in the two-slit experiment. Interferences are the hallmark of superposed states and are the heart of quantum physics. Quantum interference is the consequence of non-commutable observables, as described in Figure 4.

In a single-photon interference experiment, if one can (even in principle) distinguish the path each photon has taken, then interferences vanish and classical probabilities apply. In the setup depicted in Figure 2, the initial path cannot be distinguished in the upper drawing, and interferences occur; in the lower drawing, paths are distinguished by measurement, and consequently classical probabilities apply (without the interference term).

The formalism of single-particle interference has been widely described and we propose to use it to describe Benveniste’s experiments (Table 3 and Figure 3).

Type-1 Observer (Wigner) and Type-2 Observer (Wigner’s Friend)

The distinction that we made between the type-1 (“outside”) observer and the type-2 (“inside”) observer is reminiscent of the thought experiment proposed by the physicist Eugene Wigner in the early 1960s and known as “Wigner’s Friend” (D’Espagnat 2005). In this thought experiment, Wigner’s friend performs a measurement on a quantum system in a superposed state

58 Francis Beauvais

(namely, a Schrödinger’s cat); a second experimenter (Wigner) remains outside the laboratory. Inside the laboratory, from the perspective of Wigner’s friend, the cat is either dead or alive at the end of the experiment (“collapse” of the quantum wave from a superposed state). Outside the laboratory, from the perspective of Wigner, the quantum system and Wigner’s friend are described in a superposed state with the two possible outcomes (cat dead and cat alive). If Wigner enters the laboratory, he sees the cat (and his friend in the corresponding state) either dead or alive (“collapse” of the quantum wave from a superposed state). Therefore, there are two valid—but different—descriptions of the same quantum state with apparent “collapse” of the quantum wave at different times: This is the so-called “measurement problem.” For Wigner (the physicist), this discrepancy between the inside and outside perspectives illustrated the role of consciousness, which seems to play a role by “ending” the chain of quantum measurements.

Figure 4. Design of an experiment exhibiting quantum-like interferences. The quantum object is measured through two successive devices named

#1 and #2. First, device #1 splits the state |ψ into two new orthogonal states, denoted |Yes1 and |No1. These two states are then fed into two identical devices, #2a and #2b, and each device splits the states into two new orthogonal states, |Yes2

and |No2, such that they are recombined at detectors D1 and D2. It is assumed that the observables associated with the fi rst device do not commute with observables associated with the second device. If the events inside the box are not measured, the system is in a superposition of states, which is not equal to either one. The consequence of superposition is that quantum probabilities to observe |Yes2 (or |No2) in detector 1 (D1) (with respect to detector 2 (D2)) are diff erent compared with classic probability due to the interference term.


We can make a parallel with on the one hand the type-1 and type-2 observers in Benveniste’s experiments, and on the other hand Wigner and his friend, respectively. The type-2 observer (i.e. Wigner’s friend) belongs to the same “branch of reality” as Benveniste’s experimenter (i.e. Schrödinger’s cat) whereas the type-1 observer (i.e. Wigner) considers that the type-2 observer (or the experimenter) is in a superposed state until he interacts with him.

The Quantum-Like Formalism Applied to Benveniste’s Experiments

We defi ne PI (ACP) as the probability for the cognitive state (named A) of the experimenter to be associated with concordant pairs (CP) according to classical probabilities; PII(ACP) is the probability of A being associated with concordant pairs according to quantum probabilities. PI(ADP) and PII(ADP) are the respective PI (classical) and PII (quantum) probabilities for discordant pairs (DP).

We describe the experimental situation from the point of view of an observer who knows the initial state of the system and does not perform any measurement/observation on it. The state vector of the cognitive state of the experimenter is described in terms of the eigenvectors of the fi rst observable (cognitive states of A indexed with labels IN and AC):

| ψA λ1 | AIN + λ2 | AAC

(21 and 2

2 are the probabilities associated with the states AIN and AAC, respectively).

We develop the eigenvectors of the fi rst observable on the eigenvectors of the second observable (concordance of pairs). We postulate that the cognitive states of A indexed with “labels” and the cognitive states of A indexed with “concordance of pairs” are non-commutable observables:

| AIN = μ11 | ACP μ12 | ADP

| AAC = μ21 | ACP μ22 | ADP

60 Francis Beauvais

Therefore, we can express | ψA as a superposed state of | ACP and | ADP :

| ψA λ1μ11 + λ2μ21) | ACP λ1μ12 + λ2μ22) | ADP

The probability of ACP is the square of the probability amplitude associated with its state:

PII (ACP)| λ1μ11 + λ2μ21 |2

PII (ACP) 2

11 22 λ1λ2μ11μ21

Similarly, PII (ADP) is calculated:

PII (ADP) 22 λ1λ2μ12μ22

If a type-1 observer has blinded the labels, the context of the experiment changes. This is formally equivalent to a which-path measurement in single-particle interference. Indeed, we have to take into account the path information; therefore, classical conditional probabilities that include path data must be used for calculation of the probability for A to be associated with concordant pairs:

PI(ACP) = P(AIN) × P(ACP | AIN) + P(AAC) × P(ACP | AAC)

with P(ACP | AIN) = and P(ACP | AAC) =

PI(ACP) = +

And similarly, PI(ADP) = + . We conclude that PII(ACP) ≠ PI(ACP) in the general case. In the squaring of

the sum, we have obtained an additional term λ1λ2μ11μ21, which is typical of all quantum mechanical interference effects.

21

221

21

212 2

22

211 2

21 21

211

22

221

21

222

12 222


Numerical Application with Data from Benveniste’s Experiments

Useful Mathematical Formulas

We search the μ values for PII(ACP)=|λ1μ11+λ2μ21|2 and PII(ADP) = |λ1μ12+λ2μ22|

2.Since + = 1, + = 1, and PII(ACP) + PII(ADP) = 1, we can easily calculate that μ11 μ21 = − μ22 μ12, = , and = . Then, we can write:

| AIN μ11 | ACP μ12 | ADP

| AAC − μ12 | ACP μ11 | ADP

We note that the matrix for change of basis is a rotation matrix:

Therefore,

| ψA λ1μ11 + λ2μ12) | ACP λ2μ11 − λ1μ12) | ADP or

| ψA λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ) | ACP λ2 cos θ − λ1sin θ) | ADP

The formulas of PII and PI become:

PII (ACP)|λ1cos θ + λ2 sin θ |2cos2 θsin2 θλ1λ2 cos θ sin θ

PII (ADP)|λ2cos θ − λ1 sin θ |2cos2 θsin2 θ−λ1λ2 cos θ sin θ

PI (ACP)cos2 θ + sin2 θ

PI (ADP)cos2 θ + sin2 θ

In a previous article, we presented Benveniste’s experiments in different experimental situations. These results, summarized in Table 1, allow for calculating the parameters of the model in different experimental situations, as detailed in the next subsections.

211 2

12 221 2

22211 2

22212 2

21

21

22

22 2

1

21

22

22 2

1

62 Francis Beauvais

Open-Label Experiments

For the open-label experiments, experimental data were obtained with P(AIN) = = 0.65 and P(AAC) = = 0.35 (Table 4).

We fi nd cos2 θ = 0.88 and sin2 θ = 0.12, indeed:

PII(ACP) = |λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ|2 = |√0.65 × √0.88 + √0.35 × √0.12 |2 = 0.92 .

PII(ADP) = |λ2 cos θ − λ1 sin θ|2 = |√0.35 × √0.88 − √0.65 × √0.12 |2 = 0.08 .

Experiments Blinded by a Type-2 Observer

For experiments blinded by a type-2 observer, experimental data were obtained with

P(AIN) = = 0.58 and P(AAC) = = 0.42 (Table 4).

We fi nd cos2 θ = 0.88 and sin2 θ = 0.12, indeed:


PII(ADP) = |λ2 cos θ − λ1 sin θ|2 = |√0.42 × √0.88 − √0.58 × √0.12 |2 = 0.12 .

Experiments Blinded (or Not) by a Type-1 Observer

For the experiments blinded by a type-1 observer, experimental data were obtained with P(AIN) = = 0.50 and P(AAC) = = 0.50 (Table 4). Suppose fi rst that we are not aware of the blinding of the experiment by a type-1 observer. We use quantum probabilities and we fi nd cos2 θ = 0.996 and sin2 θ = 0.004:

PII(ACP) = |λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ|2 = |√0.50 × √0.996 + √0.50 × √0.004 |2 = 0.56.

PII(ADP) = |λ2 cos θ − λ1 sin θ|2 = |√0.50 × √0.996 − √0.50 × √0.004 |2 = 0.44.

These results indicate that the interference term is low and we obtain results close to classical probabilities:

PI(ACP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θ = 0.50 × 0.996 + 0.50 × 0.004 = 0.50 .

21

22

21

22

21

22

21

22


TABLE 4

Extraction of the Diff erent Parameters from Experimental Resultsand Use of Quantum Probabilities for Modeling

EXPERIMENTAL SITUATION

Open-Label Blinding by Type-2 Observer a

Blinding byType-1 Observer a, b

Experimental data c

P(AIN) = 21 0.65 0.58 0.50

P(AAC) = 22 0.35 0.42 0.50

P(ACP) 0.92 0.88 0.56

P(ADP) 0.08 0.12 0.44

Calculated parameters and modeling

= = cos2 θ 0.88 0.88 0.996

= = sin2 θ 0.12 0.12 0.004

PI(ACP) (classical) d 0.61 0.56 0.50

PI(ADP) (classical) e 0.39 0.44 0.50

Interference term f 0.31 0.32 0.06

PII(ACP) (quantum) g 0.92 (0.61 + 0.31) 0.88 (0.56 + 0.32) 0.56 (0.50 + 0.06)

PII(ADP) (quantum)h 0.08 (0.39 – 0.31) 0.12 (0.44 – 0.32) 0.44 (0.50 – 0.06)

↓ , background; ↑ , signal; CP, concordant pairs; DP, discordant pairs; IN, “inactive” labels; AC, “active” labels.a For defi nition of type-1 observer (Wigner) and type-2 observer (Wigner’s friend), see text.b For experiments with type-1 observer including both open-label and blind samples, see text.c These experimental data are from experiments described in Table 1 and in Beauvais (2012).

d PI(ACP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θe PI(ADP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θf 2λ1λ2 cos θ sin θ g PII(ACP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θ + 2λ1λ2 cos θ sin θh PII(ADP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θ − 2λ1λ2 cos θ sin θ

21

22

22 2

1

21 2

222

21

212 2

21

211 2

22

64 Francis Beauvais

We have seen, however, that in the same experimental session supervised by a type-1 observer, both blind and open-label samples were included (as in the experiment described in Table 1). To model this case, it is reasonable to suppose that the values of sin θ are the same regardless of label blinding. For probability calculations, we take the values for cos2 θ and sin2 θ (0.88 and 0.12, respectively) as calculated in the subsections Open-Label Experiments and Experiments Blinded by a Type-2 Observer:

For open labels,


After blinding by the type-1 observer, classical probabilities apply:

PI(ACP) = cos2 θ + sin2 θ = 0.50 0.88 + 0.50 0.12 = 0.50 .

Therefore, the difference for probability of concordant pairs in open labels vs. blind labels in the same session with a type-1 observer is well-described by the proposed formalism: The probability of observing concordant pairs is high with open-label samples (Probability = 0.92), but lower for blind samples (Probability = 0.50) and not better than random in this case.

Comments on the Quantum-Like Formalism

Applied to Benveniste’s Experiments

Non-Commutable Observables and Emergence of Signal

If θ = 0, then the observables are commutable:

| AIN = cos θ × | ACP + sin θ × | ADP = 1 × | ACP + 0 × | ADP = | ACP

| AAC = −sin θ × | ACP + cos θ × | ADP = 0 × | ACP + 1 × | ADP = | ADP

In this particular case, the observation of concordant pairs is always associated with label IN (i.e. IN is always associated with “↓”) and the observation of discordant pairs is always associated with label AC (i.e. AC is always associated with “↓”). Therefore, no signal is observed with commutable observables; only background is associated with both IN and AC labels.

This shows that non-commutable observables are necessary not only for high rates of concordant pairs, but also for signal emergence. Note also that the signal must be one of the possible states of the system, even one with a low probability. In other words, the signal must be present in the

21

22


TABLE 5

Summary of the Quantum-Like Model Describing Benveniste’s Experiments

Non-Commutable Observables

(θ ≠ 0)

Commutable Observables

(θ = 0)

With Interference Term(Superposition)

Without Interference Term(No Superposition)

Presence of signal Yes a Yes b No c

Concordance of labels and outcomes d

High e Low f NA

Probability of concordant pairs: P(ACP)

|λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ|2 cos2 θ + sin2 θ

Probability of discordant pairs: P(ADP) |λ2 cos θ − λ1 sin θ|2 cos2 θ + sin2 θ 2

2

Corresponding experimental situations

Open-label or blinding by

type-2 observer

Blinding bytype-1 observer

Unqualifi ed or untrained

experimenter

NA, not applicable.

a PII (A) = 21 × PII (ADP) +2

2 × PII (ACP) b PI (A) = 2

1 × PI (ADP) +22 × PI (ACP)

c Observables are commutable with cos θ = 1 and sin θ = 0; then P(A) = 0 and P(A) = 1 (only

background is observed by A; there is no signal). d Concordant pairs: AIN associated with A

or AAC associated with A↑.e For sin θ = λ2 (and consequently cos θ = λ1), the quantum interference term is maximal with

PII (ACP) = 1 and PII (ADP) = 0.f For 2

1 =22 = 0.5, concordance of pairs is not diff erent than random (whatever θ value).

background; thanks to entanglement, the emergence of the signal is made possible.

“Which-Path” Measurement and Contextuality in Benveniste’s Experiments

In the proposed formalism, there is neither success nor failure of the experiments (Table 5). Simply, as in a single-particle interference experiment, we can decide to observe either “waves” or “particles” by modifying the setting of the experiment. In the two-slit experiment of Young, observing “waves” (interference pattern on the screen) is not considered as a success whereas observing “particles” (no interference

21 2

1

21

22

22

66 Francis Beauvais

pattern after which-path measurement) is not considered as a failure.In Benveniste’s experiments, the decision to observe “particles”

(concordant pairs plus discordant pairs) or “waves” (only concordant pairs) is related to the design of the experiment (Figure 3). If the “cognitive state” of the experimenter is able to interfere with itself (as a single particle interferes with itself), then the probability of “success” is high. In case of blinding by a type-2 observer, quantum probabilities also apply since the respective cognitive states of the experimenter A and of the type-2 observer O are on the same branch of reality (as Wigner’s friend observing Schrödinger’s cat). Therefore, there is no formal difference for open-label vs. blinding by a type-2 observer. The same outcomes are obtained since the state vector that describes their cognitive states is:

|ΨAO = (λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ) |ACP|OCP + (λ2 cos θ − λ1 sin θ) |ADP|ODP

If the sample blinding is performed by a type-1 observer, then conditional classical probabilities that take into account the “which path” information apply. In this case, the cognitive state of the experimenter cannot interfere with itself (there is no superposition). When the experimenter and the type-1 observer meet together after a series of blind experiments, they assess the rate of concordant pairs and they both agree that the probability of concordant pairs is low. We have to insist that, even with blinding by a type-1 observer, the signal is present if sin θ ≠ 0.

Cognitive Aspect of the Formalism

The concordance of pairs is optimal for cos θ = λ1 and sin θ = λ2; indeed, in this case,

PII(ACP) = |λ1 cos θ + λ2 sin θ|2= 1 (Table 5).

The probabilities of concordant pairs were 0.88 and 0.92 for open-label experiments and blind experiments with a type-2 observer, respectively (Table 4). This should not surprise us; it simply indicates that correlations in “real” experiments were not optimal and probabilities of concordant pairs were slightly <1.

Moreover, in a cognitive context, the fact that optimal concordance of pairs is observed when cos θ = λ1 and sin θ = λ2 is of particular interest. Indeed, the λ parameters (probability for labels IN or AC) are related to the experimental protocol, which defi nes the proportions of labels IN and AC. In contrast, the angle θ characterizes the relationship between the observables, which become noncommutable if θ is different from zero


(see the section The Quantum-Like Formalism Applied to Benveniste’s Experiments). The probability for the experimenter to observe a high rate of concordant pairs is related to modifi cation of its cognitive state described by the state vector in Hilbert space and summarized by changes of the angle θ. Therefore, it is tempting to link up the angle θ to a previous training and to information on experimental protocol.

It could be suggested that θ fl uctuates randomly around zero; the more and more “favorable” values of θ would be progressively selected (“learned”) by feedback according to the observed outcomes. In the Mach-Zehnder apparatus, this is equivalent to adjusting settings (e.g., fi ne-tuning for equal lengths of paths R and T) based on trial and error in order to get all photons in the detector D1 (all photons in phase) (Figure 2).

In summary, we propose that the outcomes of Benveniste’s experiments were related to cognitive processes (i.e. establishment of relations between different cognitive states) and that the successive experimenters on Benveniste’s team acquired skill by manipulating the biological systems and measurement devices (for example, by performing “classical” experiments).

Note also that a relatively large variation of sin2 θ around 22 leads to

“good” results with a high rate of concordant pairs observed by A (Figure 5). Thus, with 2

2 set at 0.35, values of sin2 θ from 0.10 to 0.75 lead to PII(ACP) > 0.90.

Relevance of Quantum-Like Formalism for Describing Macroscopic Events

The conceptual framework of quantum theory is the logical consequence of some simple assumptions. Among them, the assumption of non-commutable observables plays a central role. In this framework, classical probabilities are only a special case of quantum probabilities, one for which all observables commute with each other. Contextuality is another central concept in quantum physics. Thus, according to the experimental device set up by the experimenter, a quantum object could appear as a particle or as a wave: With the use of a two-slit device (or a Mach-Zehnder apparatus), the decision to observe—or not—which path entered the quantum object has a chief consequence on the experiment outcome.

As we have seen, contextuality also had important consequences in Ben-veniste’s experiments: The circumstances of blinding appeared to have crucial consequences. Since interest was focused on the local properties of water (the so-called “memory of water”), little attention was paid to the logical aspects of the experiments. Therefore, the different outcomes according to conditions of blinding were interpreted as diffi culties in reproducibility related to “con-taminations,” “electromagnetic interferences,” or other ad hoc explanations.

68 Francis Beauvais

Opposite to this interpretation, we suggested that “successes” and “failures” during these puzzling experiments were the two faces of the same coin. The price to pay for this interpretation was to give up the idea that some modifi cation in the water structure (“memory”) was the cause of the biological outcomes observed with “high dilutions” or “digital biology.” Note, however, that no convincing and reproducible physical modifi cation of water structure able to induce specifi c biological phenomena has ever been reported; therefore, the price is not so high.

Faced with the description of Benveniste’s experiments using quantum probabilities, different approaches are possible. It could be argued that the application of quantum concepts to these experiments is only metaphorical and that the analogy is simply ad hoc. Another approach—quite the

Figure 5. Probability of observing concordant pairs (IN with or AC with ) as a

function of sin2 θ (in this case21

= 0.65 and22 = 0.35).

Optimal theoretical value for probability of concordant pairs [P(ACP) = 1] is obtained for 2

22sin (here for sin2 θ = 0.35; experimental value for

P(ACP) was 0.92 for sin2 θ = 0.12).


opposite—is in the spirit of strict physicalism where everything can be reduced to physics. Since nothing can be left outside the fi eld of physics, phenomena with a formal quantum description—as those described in this article—are thus quantum phenomena. However, a general acceptance of such an interpretation is generally hampered by the idea that the environment would rapidly destroy macroscopic superpositions.

A third way is possible, as suggested recently by some authors in different research areas. These authors proposed describing some specifi c parts of the world, whether physical or nonphysical, with a formalism isomorphic to that of standard quantum physics. This can be total isomorphism or more likely partial isomorphism, so that only certain special features of the quantum formalism are used for probability calculation of outcomes. A quantum-like formalism has thus been applied to human memory, information retrieval, decision making, opinion forming, personality psychology, etc. (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend 2006, Khrennikov 2006, 2009, Mogiliansky, Zamir, & Zwirn 2009, Pothos & Busemeyer 2009). These research areas have in common the description of cognition mechanisms and information processing in the brain, but this new approach does not rest on the hypothesis that there is something quantum mechanical about the physical brain. The quantum formalism is simply used as a source of alternative new tools (such as contextuality or entanglement) to address problems that remained unresolved in a classical framework. In these studies, the cognitive states of agents were characterized by state vectors in Hilbert space, and, in several experimental models, quantum probabilities had better predictive power than classical probabilities. Thus, some “paradoxical” statistical data, particularly in psychology and cognitive sciences, could be modeled (Atmanspacher, Filk, & Romer 2004, Conte, Todarello, Federici, Vitiello, Lopane, & Khrennikov, 2004, Khrennikov & Haven 2009, Mogiliansky, Zamir, & Zwirn 2009, Pothos & Busemeyer 2009).

In our model, the observables are nonphysical and therefore are not supposed to be exposed to the decoherence process. The fi rst observable is labels, which have the meaning that the experimenter decides (all samples are ph ysically equivalent). The other observable, pair concordance, also requires information processing for “interpretation.” The cognitive process that we describe is not a causal action on the physical world, but it allows changing the “point of view” of the experimenter/observer, which is plunged into the world of possibilities described in the Hilbert space.

Finally, it has not escaped our notice that the present interpretation of Benveniste’s experiments and the associated mathematical formalism that we propose could be extended to other experimental situations where an apparent “causal” relationship depends on contextual parameters.

70 Francis Beauvais

Conclusion

The outcomes of the cognitive state of the experimenter were calculated for a series of Benveniste’s experiments using a quantum-like statistical model (i.e. a model inspired by quantum physics and taking into consideration superposition of quantum states, non-commutable observables, and contextual-ity). Not only were the probabilities of “success” and “failure” of the experiments modeled according to their context, but the emergence of a signal from background also was taken into account. For the fi rst time, a formal framework devoid of any reference to “memory of water” or “digital biology” describes all the characteristics of these disputed results. Particularly, the diffi culties encountered by Benveniste (reproducibility of the experiments, disturbances after blinding) are simply explained in this model without additional ad hoc hypotheses. It is thus proposed that we see Benveniste’s experiments as the result of quantum-like probability interferences of cognitive states.

References

Alfonsi, M. (1992). Au Nom de la Science. Paris: Bernard Barrault.Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Romer, H. (2004). Quantum Zeno features of bistable perception.

Biological Cybernetics, 90(1), 33–40.Beauvais, F. (2007). L’Âme des Molécules—Une Histoire de la “Mémoire de l’Eau.” Collection Mille

Mondes (ISBN 978-1411668751). Beauvais, F. (2008). Memory of water and blinding. Homeopathy, 97(1), 41–42.Beauvais, F. (2012). Emergence of a signal from background noise in the “memory of water”

experiments: How to explain it? Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 8(3), 185–196.

Belon, P., Cumps, J., Ennis, M., Mannaioni, P. F., Sainte-Laudy, J., Roberfroid, M., & Wiegant, F. A. (1999). Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial. Infl ammation Research, 48(Supplement 1), S17–S18.

Benveniste, J. (2005). Ma Vérité sur la Mémoire de l’Eau. Paris: Albin Michel.Benveniste, J., Davenas, E., Ducot, B., Cornillet, B., Poitevin, B., & Spira, A. (1991). L’agitation de

solutions hautement diluées n’induit pas d’activité biologique spécifi que. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. Série 2, Mécanique, Physique, Chimie, Sciences de l’Univers, Sciences de la Terre, 312(5), 461–466.

Brown, V., & Ennis, M. (2001). Flow-cytometric analysis of basophil activation: Inhibition by histamine at conventional and homeopathic concentrations. Infl ammation Research, 50 (Supplement 2), S47–S48.

Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(3), 220–241.

Conte, E., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Vitiello, T., Lopane, M., & Khrennikov, A. (2004). A preliminary evidence of quantum-like behavior in measurements of mental states. In A. Yu. Khrennikov, Editor, Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations. (Series in the Mathematical Modeling in Physical Engineering and Cognitive Sciences, 3, 679–702), Växjö: Växjö University Press.


Davenas, E., Beauvais, F., Amara, J., Oberbaum, M., Robinzon, B., Miadonna, A., Tedeschi, A., Pomeranz, B., Fortner, P., Belon, P., Sainte-Laudy, J., Poitevin, B., & Benveniste, J. (1988). Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature, 333(6176), 816–818.

Davenas, E., Poitevin, B., & Benveniste, J. (1987). Eff ect of mouse peritoneal macrophages of orally administered very high dilutions of silica. European Journal of Pharmacology, 135(3), 313–319.

de Pracontal, M. (1990). Les Mystères de la Mémoire de l’Eau. Paris: La Découverte.D’Espagnat, B. (2005). Consciousness and the Wigner’s friend problem. Foundations of Physics,

35(12), 1943–1966.Ennis, M. (2010). Basophil models of homeopathy: A sceptical view. Homeopathy, 99(1), 51–56.Hirst, S. J., Hayes, N.A., Burridge, J., Pearce, F. L., & Foreman, J. C. (1993). Human basophil

degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature, 366(6455), 525–527.

Jonas, W. B., Ives, J. A., Rollwagen, F., Denman, D. W., Hintz, K., Hammer, M., Crawford, C., & Henry, K. (2006). Can specifi c biological signals be digitized? FASEB: The Journal of the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology, 20(1), 23–28.

Kaufmann, A. (1994). The aff air of the memory of water. Towards a sociology of scientifi c communication. Réseaux. The French Journal of Communication, 2(2), 183–204.

Khrennikov, A. (2006). Quantum-like brain: “Interference of minds.” Biosystems, 84(3), 225–241.Khrennikov, A. (2009). Quantum-like model of cognitive decision making and information

processing. Biosystems, 95(3), 179–187.Khrennikov, A. Y., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing

principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 378–388.

Maddox, J. (1988a). When to believe the unbelievable. Nature, 333(6176), 787.Maddox, J. (1988b). Waves caused by extreme dilution. Nature, 335(6193), 760–763.Maddox, J., Randi, J., & Stewart, W. W. (1988). “High-dilution” experiments a delusion. Nature,

334(6180), 287–290.Mogiliansky, A. L., Zamir, S., & Zwirn, H. (2009). Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT(Kahneman–

Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 349–361.Ovelgonne, J. H., Bol, A. W., Hop, W. C., & van Wijk, R. (1992). Mechanical agitation of very dilute

antiserum against IgE has no eff ect on basophil staining properties. Experientia, 48(5), 504–508.

Poitevin, B. (2008). The continuing mystery of the Memory of Water. Homeopathy, 97(1), 39–41.Poitevin, B., Davenas, E., & Benveniste, J. (1988). In vitro immunological degranulation of human

basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifi ca. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 25(4), 439–444.

Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276(1665), 2171–2178.

Scarani, V., & Suarez, A. (1998). Introducing quantum mechanics: One-particle interferences. American Journal of Physics, 66(8), 718–721.

Schiff , M. (1998). The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science. London: Thorsons Publishers.

Teixeira, J. (2007). Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view. Homeopathy, 96(3), 158–162.

Thomas, Y. (2007). The history of the Memory of Water. Homeopathy, 96(3), 151–157.

73

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Replication Attempt: Measuring Water

Conductivity with Polarized Electrodes

SERGE KERNBACH

Institute of Parallel and Distributed Systems, University of Stuttgart, Universitätstrasse 38, Stuttgart 70569, [email protected]


Abstract—We attempted to reproduce the results of experiments related to measuring the conductivity of water with deeply polarized electrodes. As proposed in the original works, the polarized electrodes are sensitive to a high-penetrating emission generated by objects of diff erent origin. We demonstrate the experiment setup used and the results obtained in replica-tion and control experiments. Based on the trials carried out, we judge the results of this replication to be positive.

Introduction

This study is based on previous research related to underwater communication by means of electric fi elds. This approach is inspired by weakly electric fi sh (von der Emde, Schwarz, Gomez, Budelli, & Grant 1998, Sim & Kim, 2011) that use different features of electric fi elds for navigation, sensing, and the coordination of collective activities. The equipment for the generation and sensing of electric fi elds is installed on small mobile underwater devices (Kernbach, Dipper, & Sutantyo 2011, Dipper, Gebhardt, Kernbach, & von der Emde 2011). The fi elds produced by different devices interact with each other and provide an account of the global properties of the underwater environment (Schmickl, Thenius, Moslinger, Timmis, Tyrell, et al., 2011). In several experiments, the modulation frequency of the electric fi eld is very low (in the range of 0.01 to 0.001 Hz), which creates deeply polarized electrodes.

In carrying out these experiments on communication via electric fi elds, we noted two interesting effects. First, the results obtained are highly reproducible for relative values within one experiment. However, in the cases of deeply polarized electrodes, the results vary among experiments. The main factors identifi ed, which infl uenced many of the results, included sensitivity to mechanical vibrations, the emissions of blue-light LEDs (used for navigation purposes), and the duration of the experiment.


74 Serge Kernbach

Several works report sensitivity in polarized electrodes to laser and LED light, and ultrasonic waves (Bobrov 2006, 1998). These works are denoted as lying within the fi eld of research related to “non-electromagnetic” (non-EM) fi elds. Despite controversial discussions, we also make use of this notion, because the original papers introduced it to explain the effects discovered in the electric double layer (EDL) (Muzalewskay & Bobrov 1988). The diffusion Gouy–Chapman layer in EDL is sensitive to, among other things, a spatial polarization of water dipoles, e.g., Lyklema (2005) and Belaya, Feigel’man, and Levadnyii (1987). Eliminating such factors as variation of temperature, EM fi elds, or vibrations, the authors Muzalewskay and Bobrov (1988) demonstrated that some active or passive objects can change the dielectric properties of EDL. These changes are detectable by measuring the current fl owing through the water–electrode system. As noted in existing research, for instance in Bobrov (2006), experiments are carried out not only with non-biological but also with biological objects such as seeds or bacteria (Bobrov 1992). Thus, the deeply polarized electrodes in water might represent a detector, which is sensitive to possible non-EM fi elds.

In particular, we are interested in the following experiment: polarized electrodes in a small container with water, representing a detector. Several such detectors were placed inside a metal box, protected from EM fi elds and temperature changes. Electronic equipment measured the conductivity of water in each of the detectors and recorded its dynamics. An LED generator was prepared, consisting of 128 yellow-light super-bright LEDs. Another container of water was irradiated by this LED generator (Bobrov 2002). As stated in Bobrov (2009, 2006), the detectors demonstrated different dynamics in the presence of irradiated water, normal water, and control experiments. In other words, the impact of non-EM fi elds from the LED generator is measurable not only directly but also indirectly through irradiated water. Since mechanical, acoustic, optical, capacitive, temperature, and EM infl uences were excluded from these experiments, the polarization of water dipoles by the LED generator created a number of deep scientifi c questions related to the nature of this interaction.

We decided to replicate this experiment in the context of our research. Primarily, the goal was not only to confi rm or refute the results of the experiment above, but also to estimate the value of a possible non-EM component and its use in the context of underwater communication. We changed the conditions of the experiments and compared the dynamics of the water conductivity (current fl owing though the water at a constant voltage) in the presence of (a) an active LED generator, (b) water irradiated by the LED generator, (c) normal water, and (d) control experiments. Comparing the dynamics of (a) and (b) to (d) could provide an account of

Measuring Water Conductivity with Polarized Electrodes 75

a possible non-EM fi eld and comparing (b) to (c) an account of the degree of spatial polarization of the water dipoles. Since conductivity is measured by a small current, we paid close attention to technical issues of accurate measurement and experimental reproducibility.

This article is structured as follows: The Methodology section describes the methodology and measurement approach used. The experiment setup is described in Appendix A. We performed three experiment series: series “A”—calibration and preliminary experiments, as described in the section Characterization of Sensors: Impact of Temperature, Vibration, and EM fi elds; series “C”—measuring the conductivity of water under the infl uence of the LED generator and irradiated water, as described in the section Experiment Series C. Additionally, in series “B” we measured the conductivity of water related to non-EM fi elds of biological origin (as described for example in Bobrov (2006)); however, these experiments are excluded from this work. Finally, in the sections Discussion of Results and Conclusion we generalize from the experiments carried out and conclude this paper.

Methodology

The electric double layer (EDL) appears on the surface of an object placed into a liquid. Electrokinetic phenomena are described by the Gouy–Chapman–Stern model (Lyklema 2005). Corresponding to this model, EDL can be represented by two layers: the internal Helmholtz (absorption) layer and the outer Gouy–Chapman (diffuse) layer (Kornyshev 2007). As mentioned in Bobrov (2006), the diffuse layer is of interest. In a number of works, e.g., Stenschke (1985), Gruen and Marcelja (1983), and Belaya, Feigel’man, and Levadnyii (1987), dielectric behavior and properties of the Gouy–Chapman layer are investigated. In particular, the dielectric response of this layer depends on among other factors the temperature, ionic concentration, and spatial polarization of water dipoles. As proposed in the original works, e.g., Bobrov (2009), and confi rmed by a large number of different experiments, some non-biological as well as biological objects are capable of infl uencing the spatial polarization of dipoles and thus change dielectric properties of the Gouy–Chapman layer. Despite the fact that the principles of such an infl uence are not defi nitively identifi ed at the moment, the produced effects appeared in changing an electric current fl owing through the water–electrode system and thus can be experimentally measured. The main methodology of those experiments consisted of removing such factors as variation of temperature and EM fi elds, acoustic impacts, and vibrations from infl uence on the results. For statistical analysis the measurements are done by several sensors in parallel and repeated to achieve statistical

76 Serge Kernbach

signifi cance. This methodology is also adapted for our experiments.We developed our own sensors by following the state of the art in

conductometry. Conductometric analysis is a well-known approach that measures the conductivity of water. There are several different methods, using two or four electrodes, see Kirkham and Taylor (1949) or more recently Bristow, Kluitenberg, Goding, and Fitzgerald (2001), as well as inductive approaches. Generally, the results of measurements are infl uenced by (Orion Conductivity Theory no date):

• polarization of electrodes, that is appearance of EDL (Lyklema 2005);• temperature;• fringing effect of the electric fi eld (Parker 2002);• technical reasons, such as noise from the voltage generator, resistance of cables and connectors;• contamination of electrode surfaces.

In the vast literature, the process leading to an appearance of EDL is denoted as polarization of electrodes (Lyklema 2005). For conductometric purposes, the electrode polarization leads to a measurement error and therefore is undesirable. To minimize this error, the conductometry with two and four electrodes is performed with an AC voltage of up to 10 kHz frequency, see for example Spillner (1957). When using EDL as a sensor, the polarization of electrodes is required and takes about 6–8 hrs. To underline the difference from a normal conductometric analysis, such electrodes are denoted as deeply polarized electrodes.

For our experiments, we prepared and used fi ve setups, as described in Appendix A (see four setups in Figure 19). The difference between them lies in the material, placement, and number of electrodes. In the following, we denote each set of electrodes in containers with water as sensors. Three identical sensors are collected into one setup, controlled by one microcontroller. For experiments, we used setups 3, 4, and 5 with nine sensors in total. To counter the infl uence of EM fi elds and parasitic couplings, the water containers with electrodes were inserted into several grounded metal boxes lined with rubber matting and wool (see Figure 1). Finally, detectors and the container with irradiated water were placed into a closed metal cupboard (the LED generator was placed outside the cupboard). The purpose of such multiple EM and temperature shields is to minimize the impact of temperature variation and environmental EM fi elds.

All experiments were performed in two laboratories: the normal electronic laboratory on the second fl oor of a university building (denoted from now on as laboratory “A”) and a laboratory placed in the basement


Figure 1. Experiment setup. (a) General structure of the experimental setup (b) Setups 3 and 4, each with three sensors in metal cans (with rubber matting and wool inside) and a metal box made of 1 mm brass (c) Setup 5. Each 3 mm brass pipe has one sensor (see Appendix A for more detail)

(a)

(b) (c)

78 Serge Kernbach

of this building (with thick concrete walls without windows—denoted as laboratory “B”). For both laboratories, we measured spectra of EM fi elds and acoustic waves when the LED generator was switched off/on. Before the start of experiment, all detectors are characterized by their reaction to vibration, changes of temperature, and EM fi elds, as described in the next section Characterization of Sensors: Impact of Temperature, Vibration, and EM Fields.

The experiments were organized in the following way. All sensors ran one week and continuously recorded the current (from the 2× electrode scheme, all setups), voltage (from the 4× electrode scheme, only setup 3), temperature, vibrations, and the level of analog and digital power supply (to measure noise from a power supply). During weekends, the received data were archived and the data-collecting program on the laptop started anew. During the experiment, either the LED generator or a container with non-irradiated or irradiated water (the terminology of the original work) was placed in front of the detector, at distance d. As suggested in Bobrov (1992, 2006), the water was “irradiated” by turning the LED generator on for 5–30 minutes (90 seconds in the original experiments). To minimize the infl uence of the operator on the detector, the LED generator was autonomously turned on/off by a microcontroller at such time when nobody was present in the laboratory. In cases when this was not possible, for example when replacing water containers, an operator quickly left the laboratory after necessary manipulations.

As mentioned in the next section Characterization of Sensors: Impact of Temperature, Vibration, and EM Fields and shown during the preliminary experiments, the sensors are not sensitive all the time. Moreover, it is not possible to predict when a sensor will lose its sensitivity. Thus, we decided to use multiple sensors to record a single experiment in parallel. Each sensor was counted as a single trial, which can be positive or negative. The experiment was positive when at least two sensors demonstrated a positive causal reaction (that is, within the time of the experiment). We counted a number of trials and a number of independent experiments. Normally, the experiments were performed in the morning, because the sensors relaxed during the night hours and there was low environmental noise. However, if we observed high environmental noise in the two hours before the experiment, we postponed the experiment to the next day. Thus, we can perform, on average, only about three experiments a week.

We observed three typical reactions in the sensors. One, the value of the current rapidly jumps from one level to another, as shown in Figure 13. This is a typical kind of behavior observed when the sensor is in a stationary state. For this type of reaction, labeled as “T1”, we measured the amplitude


TABLE 1

Parameters of Experiment C

N Parameter Description

1 Type of electrodes Setup 3: 4-electrode scheme, chromium–stainless steel, 1 mm diameter (replaceable); Setup 4: 2-electrode scheme, fi rst electrode chromium–stainless steel, 1 mm diameter (replaceable); Setup 5: 2-electrode scheme, platinum, 1 mm diameter (non-replaceable)

2 Distance between electrodes 10 mm–60 mm

3 Voltage level DC, 0.9 V–4 V, changing of polarity is possible, noise level ±10 mV

4 Current level in DAC circuit 3 μA–40 μA

5 EM (radio frequency and 50/60 Hz) and optical shield

All electrodes/electronics are placed inside several grounded metal boxes made of steel/brass. See Ott (1988) for more detail on EM production.

6 Temperature shield Foam rubber and wool in each metal box

7 Elimination of parasitic DC couplings Power via USB from a laptop, laptop in battery mode (in control experiments), LED generator powered by D-size batteries

8 Water used in sensors Purifi ed by osmosis (before Experiment C160) and bi-distilled (after Experiment C160), 50–150 ml in glass (setups 3 and 5) and stainless steel (setup 4) containers

9 Water used for irradiation Normal tap water, rested for 7–24 hours before the irradiation, 500 ml in glass container

10 Water used in control experiments Normal tap water, rested for 7–120 hours before the experiments, 500 ml in glass container

11 Type of sensor’s reaction Type 1, type 2, type 3

12 Exposure time of LED generator 20–40 minutes by 169 blue-light (470 nm), 11 cd LEDs

13 LED mode used in experiments Oscillations 1 and 2, rotation CCW and CW

14 Exposure time of irradiated water 30–80 minutes

15 Duration of irradiation of water 5–30 minutes

16 Distance between detector and LED generator / irradiated water

5–13, 30 cm

17 Time between irradiation of water and start of experiment

Immediately before, to 72 hours before

18 Number of sensors recording in parallel 3, 6, 9

80 Serge Kernbach

of the current changes over the average current for each of the sensors and wrote down only these values (without the label “T1”) as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4.

When current continuously increases or decreases (this behavior can take several days), the sensor either does not react at all, or changes its inclination (see Figure 12 and Figure 14). We did not observe a rapid change of current; this behavior is labeled as type 2 (or “T2”). Finally, when the current oscillates, it changes the amplitude or frequency of the modulation. This is the type 3 reaction, labeled as “T3”. When the change of current was signifi cant, we noted this change as well. The different parameters of the experiments performed are collected in Table 1.

Characterization of Sensors:

Impact of Temperature, Vibration, and EM Fields

Variation of Temperature

Despite thermal shields, it is impossible to maintain a constant temperature during experiments because of self-heating of electronic components and environmental changes. Thus, the temperature impact can represent an important factor infl uencing the results. To characterize the reaction of the sensors to temperature, we performed several measurements. The main methodology was to fi nd a combination of temperature-isolating materials, the distance d, and the parameters of the LED generator (e.g., the voltage applied to LEDs) to observe a non-proportional or delayed response of temperature sensors in relation to a response of current sensors (see cases (2), (3), and (4) below).

(1) Control measurement. To characterize a non-infl uenced behavior of sensors, we performed the control measurement over 50 hours in laboratory B, as shown in Figure 2. The total variation of temperature was about 0.4 C; we observed a slowly increasing current ΔI = 0.5 μA, which follows the changes of temperature. Thus Δt = 0.1 caused a change of current ΔI = 0.125 μA in a long-term, slowly changing dynamic. However, this relation was nonlinear and depended on the previous dynamic (e.g., increasing or decreasing).

(2) Delayed response of temperature sensors. Laboratory A had a larger variation of temperature than laboratory B; this represents the worst-case dynamics of the current. In experiment C130 (see Figure 3), the temperature change in region I (3.5 hours, 3:30–7:00) was about 0.25 C, in region II about 0.025 C (1.5 hours, 7:00–8:30), in region III about 0.015 C (one hour, 8:40–9:40 when the LED generator was turned on), and about 0.22 C after the experiment in region IV (2 hours, 10:00–12:00).


Temperature changes during I–III were caused by the environment, and during IV mostly by heat from the LED generator. Corresponding changes of current during I and II were ΔI1 = 0.05 μA, ΔI2 = 0.2 μA, ΔI3 = 0.03 μA for all three sensors over 5 hours. Changes of current for region III were ΔI1 = 0.15 μA, ΔI2 = 0.4 μA, ΔI3 = 0.08 μA over 1 hour. Behavior in region IV was strongly infl uenced by the LED generator and was rather different for all three sensors. Thus, thermal and LED generator changes of current were quantitatively and qualifi edly different. Moreover, due to thermal shields, the heat from the LED generator reached the sensors 20 minutes after the LED generator was turned off.

(3) Comparisons of thermal impacts. In experiment C166 the LED

Figure 2. Control measurement taken over 50 hours in laboratory B. (a) Setup 3, temperature sensor (b) Setup 3, sensor 1 (all other sensors demonstrated similar dynamics)

37.65

37.7

37.75

37.8

37.85

37.9

37.95

38

38.05

38.1

06:00 18:00 06:00 18:00 06:00

Te

mp

era

ture

, C

Time

exp. A147, temperature sensor, setup 3

13.2

13.3

13.4

13.5

13.6

13.7

13.8

13.9

06:00 18:00 06:00 18:00 06:00

Cu

rre

nt,

μA

Time

exp. A147, setup 3, sensor 1

(a)

(b)

82 Serge Kernbach

Figure 3. Impact of temperature on the sensors in laboratory A.

(Gray area) represents the time when the LED generator was switched on. Variation of temperature 90 minutes before the experiment is about 0.025 C, and during the experiment 0.015 C. To demonstrate the delayed dynamics of temp-erature and make them more visible, we plot output from all three sensors.

IV

IIIII

I

36.45

36.5

36.55

36.6

36.65

36.7

36.75

04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. C130, temperature sensor, setup 3

13.4

13.45

13.5

13.55

13.6

13.65

13.7

13.75

13.8

13.85

04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

exp. C130, setup 3, sensor 1

14.6

14.8

15

15.2

15.4

15.6

15.8

16

04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


19.1

19.15

19.2

19.25

19.3

19.35

19.4

19.45

19.5

04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

Time


Cu

rre

nt,

μA


generator was powered by a low voltage of 2.5 V to minimize the self-heating and installed in front of setup 5 (outside the metal cupboard) at a distance of 30 cm. Setups 3 and 4 in a brass box were placed to the left so that the distance between setup 5 and setup 3 was about 70 cm (see Figure 4). In both setups Δt = 0.08 C; however, we observed a delayed increase in temperature in setup 3 due to additional thermal shields (this also resulted in a 2.5 C higher temperature inside the brass box) (see Figure 5). The current dynamics in each setup was different. In setup 5, which was placed on the main axis of the LED generator, we observed a fast increase of current and also a fast decay after the experiment. However, the current in setup 3 was slowly increasing following the changes of temperature. It was similar to the non-perturbed dynamics, shown in Figure 2. We repeated this experiment two days later in experiment C167 with similar results. Thus the dynamics of current in the LED generator and outside are completely different despite the fact that the changes in temperature were the same.

(4) Non-proportional (with respect to temperature) growth of cur-rent. In experiment A165 (see Figure 6), before the experiment we created a constant increase of environmental temperature of about Δt = 0.02 C every 2 hours. The corresponding constant change of current was about ΔI = 0.01 μA. During the experiment, the low-power LED generator additionally changed the temperature about Δt = 0.01 C, which however follows the previous trend of increasing the temperature. Thus, in total we did not observe any essential fl uctuations of temperature in this experiment. Even so, the corresponding change of current was about ΔI = 0.09 μA. Thus, there was no essential fl uctuation of temperature; however, there was an essential

Figure 4. Scheme of experiments C166 and C167.

LED Generator, low voltage

metal cupboard

brass box

setup5

0.3m

0.7m

setup3

84 Serge Kernbach

Figure 5. Experiment C166 and the repeated experiment C167 in laboratory B. (Gray area) Represents the time when the LED generator was switched on. (a, c, e, g) Data from the temperature sensors of setups 3 and 5 (b, d, f, h) Data from the current sensors of setups 3 and 5

35.54

35.56

35.58

35.6

35.62

35.64

35.66

35.68

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


33.14

33.16

33.18

33.2

33.22

33.24

33.26

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


32.94

32.96

32.98

33

33.02

33.04

33.06

33.08

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. C166, temperature sensor 1, setup 5

10.52

10.54

10.56

10.58

10.6

10.62

10.64

10.66

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


36.11

36.12

36.13

36.14

36.15

36.16

36.17

36.18

36.19

36.2

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


34.53

34.54

34.55

34.56

34.57

34.58

34.59

34.6

34.61

34.62

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


33.39

33.4

33.41

33.42

33.43

33.44

33.45

33.46

33.47

33.48

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


10.49

10.5

10.51

10.52

10.53

10.54

10.55

10.56

10.57

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Experiment C166

Experiment C167( replication)


fl uctuation of current, i.e. there was a non-proportional (with respect to temperature) increase in current during the experiment. This behavior was replicated in experiment A168.

(5) Changed dynamics from irradiated water. Since containers with water do not produce any heat, a variation in environmental temperature is minimal in such experiments. For example, in experiment C162, the container with irradiated water was placed in front of the detector at 17:20 and removed at 18:00. Variation of temperature before the experiment was about 0.015 C, and during the experiment 0.03 C. The dynamics of the current was increasing, and we observed a deviation from this dynamic of 0.05 μA. The temperature started to change about 15 minutes after the beginning of the experiment. The current started to change immediately after the water container was placed close to the detector. We replicated this experiment several times, e.g., within A169 and C192 (with the recording of several other parameters) (see Figure 7).

Figure 6. Impact of temperature variation on the sensors in laboratory B. (Gray area) represents the time when the LED generator was switched on.

Variation of temperature 120 minutes before the experiment was about 0.02 C, and during the experiment 0.01 C.

10.9

10.92

10.94

10.96

10.98

11

11.02

11.04

11.06

09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


33.26

33.28

33.3

33.32

33.34

33.36

33.38

33.4

33.42

33.44

33.46

10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. A168, temperature sensor 1, setup 5

Experiment A168 (replication)

Experiment A165

86 Serge Kernbach

Figure 7. Impact of temperature variation on the sensors in laboratory B. (Gray area) Represents the time when the container with irradiated water

was placed close to the detector.

35.5

35.55

35.6

35.65

35.7

15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


19.05

19.1

19.15

19.2

19.25

19.3

19.35

15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


28.78

28.8

28.82

28.84

28.86

28.88

28.9

28.92

28.94

07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time

exp. A169, temperature sensor 1, setup 5

11.26

11.28

11.3

11.32

11.34

11.36

11.38

11.4

07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


26.2

26.22

26.24

26.26

26.28

26.3

26.32

26.34

26.36

26.38

26.4

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00

Tem

pera

ture

, C

Time


11.5

11.6

11.7

11.8

11.9

12

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


Experiment C162

Experiment A169 (replication)

Experiment C192 (replication)


Figure 8. Impact of vibrations on the 3D accelerometer. (a) Data from the 3D accelerometer (setup 3) recorded over experiment A160. To test the setup, we lightly touched the metal can at 10:30. (b) Current dynamics (setup 3, sensor 1) recorded over experiment A160

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

AD

C v

alu

es fro

m a

ccele

rom

ente

r

Time

Test

exp. A160, acceleromenter, setup 3

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


(a) (b)

Impact of Vibration, EM Fields, and Acoustic Waves on Sensors

Data from the accelerometer. To characterize the impact of vibrations and other mechanical perturbations, Figure 8 shows the data from the 3D accelerometer over 12 hours for experiment A160. To test the accelerometer, we lightly touched the metal can of the detector at 10:30; the consequent peak is readily visible. In Figure 8(b) we observe a corresponding change of current at 10:30, which was quickly normalized to a non-perturbed value. Thus, mechanical perturbations appear as readily visible peaks in the dynamics of the current and in this way qualitatively differ from the slowly changing dynamic observed in other experiments.

EM fi eld. Measurements of the EM fi eld were performed by the spectrum analyzer 9 KHz . . . 7 Ghz produced by Rohde & Schwarz. First we measured the spectrum of the background EM fi eld in laboratories A and B. As is visible from Figure 9, laboratory A had frequencies occupied by WiFi, GSM, and FM radio. In laboratory B these frequencies were empty. In laboratory B we also measured the spectrum of the EM fi eld close to the unshielded setup when: 1) the LED generator was on, and the detector was off; 2) the LED generator was on and the detector was on but the laptop was off; 3) the LED generator, the detector, and the laptop all were on (see Figure 10).

We did not discover any differences up to the level of −90 dBm, when the LED generator and the shielded detector were on or off. The unshielded detector generated a signal of −70 dBm in the area of about 40 MHz, which

88 Serge Kernbach

Figure 9. Spectrum of the EM fi eld in laboratory A (a) and in laboratory B (b).

(a) (b)

however decreased to −90 dBm when we moved the antenna 10 cm away from the detector. The laptop produced a number of different frequencies, as is visible in Figure 10(c).

Acoustic waves. The level of acoustic signals in laboratory B was measured with Metrel C-MI 6301 (20–10000 Hz, 30–130 dB) during the autonomous work of the LED generator. The signal remained below the minimal resolution of this device, i.e. <30 dB. Since no ultrasound emitters were installed in laboratory B and all surrounding laboratories, the level of acoustic waves over 20 kHz was not measured.

The main conclusion from these measurements is fi rst of all, that the shielded LED generator and setups did not produce an EM fi eld over −90 dBm. Thus, powering the LED generator did not infl uence the sensors, at least up to the level sensed by the spectrum analyzer. The laptop generated several frequencies in the area up to 100 MHz, which however remained unchanged before, during, and after experiments. Thus, the EM fi eld produced by the laptop cannot be attributed to the changes of current during experiments. Frequencies occupied by WiFi, GSM, and FM radio are empty in laboratory B. The impact of vibration and perturbation of mechanical origin are well-distinguished by the characteristic peaks of current and by data from the 3D accelerometer. Thus, they also can be removed from consideration. We also monitored the level of voltage on the USB bus from the laptop, and no anomalous variations of the supply voltage were detected.


Figure 10. Spectrum of the EM fi eld measured close to the unshielded detector and the LED generator.

(a) LED generator is on, detector is off (b) LED generator is on, detector is on,

no connection to the laptop (c) LED generator is on, detector is on,

laptop is on

Variations of temperature represent the hardest impact; they are in the best case Δt = 0.01−0.03 C, in the worst case Δt = 0.05−0.2 C. We cannot completely remove this infl uence from the experiments. There are several arguments for the hypothesis that changes of temperature do not represent the main factor for changes of current during the experiments. First, due to the thermal shields, we observed in many cases a delayed response of the temperature sensor—between 5 and 20 minutes after the current started to change (see Figure 3 and Figure 7). Second, we demonstrated that current increases disproportionately to temperature during several experiments (see Figure 6). Finally, after removing the infl uence, the dynamics of current changes its own slope or direction (from decreasing to increasing and vice versa), whereas the temperature is still increasing. This points to another factor (besides the variation in temperature) infl uencing the dynamics of the current.

(a) (b)

(c)

90 Serge Kernbach

Experiment Series C

Experiments with the LED Generator

A typical run of such experiments is shown in Figure 11. Here, the LED generator was switched on for 70 minutes and we recorded the output of the sensors. It can be seen that both sensors demonstrated a type 1 reaction with a current change of 1.3 μA and 0.3 μA, respectively. Since the behavior of the current during the experiment and 2 hours before the experiment differed qualitatively, we decided the experiment was positive. Table 2 is an overview of the experiments using the LED generator. In some experiments, for example those shown in Figure 12, the current remained unchanged, but the behavior of the sensor was modulated, that is showing type 2 and type 3 dynamics.

We performed 72 trials (within 16 independent experiments; A165 and A168 are counted as trials but not as experiments) of the direct infl uence of the LED generator on the sensors. Fifty-eight indicated a visible change of behavior, 3 showed an appearance of T2/T3 dynamics, and in 11 trials we did not discover any changes in current during or after the LED generator was turned on. Several dynamics of the current recorded during these experiments are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 11. Experiment C23 with setup 3 of the detector and the LED generator, d = 15 cm, LED generator using the fi rst waveform.

(Gray area) The LED generator was switched on between 23:47 and 00:57. (a) Output of the fi rst sensor (b) Output of the second sensor

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


(a) (b)


Figure 12. Several experiments with the LED generator.

5.72

5.74

5.76

5.78

5.8

5.82

5.84

5.86

5.88

5.9

5.92

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


4.89

4.9

4.91

4.92

4.93

4.94

4.95

4.96

4.97

4.98

4.99

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

exp. C33, setup3, sensor 1

7.8

7.85

7.9

7.95

8

8.05

8.1

8.15

8.2

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12

12.2

12.4

12.6

12.8

13

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


4.86

4.88

4.9

4.92

4.94

4.96

4.98

5

05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


28.8

29

29.2

29.4

29.6

29.8

30

30.2

01:00 03:00 05:00 07:00 09:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


22

22.2

22.4

22.6

22.8

23

23.2

23.4

23.6

06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


7.1

7.15

7.2

7.25

7.3

7.35

7.4

7.45

7.5

06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30


Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

8.75

8.8

8.85

8.9

8.95

9

9.05

06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30


Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

11.6

11.8

12

12.2

12.4

12.6

12.8

13

13.2

13.4

13.6

13.8

08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


20.35

20.4

20.45

20.5

20.55

20.6

20.65

20.7

20.75

20.8

08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.9

15

15.1

08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


15.3

15.35

15.4

15.45

15.5

15.55

15.6

15.65

15.7

15.75

07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


13.4

13.45

13.5

13.55

13.6

13.65

13.7

13.75

13.8

13.85

08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


15.7

15.75

15.8

15.85

15.9

15.95

16

16.05

08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


12.98

13

13.02

13.04

13.06

13.08

13.1

13.12

13.14

13.16

13.18

13.2

08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


14.4

14.5

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.9

15

15.1

15.2

15.3

07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


14.6

14.65

14.7

14.75

14.8

14.85

14.9

14.95

15

15.05

06:30 07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


92 Serge Kernbach

TABLE 2

Overview of Experiment Series C with the LED Generator

N SetupNumber

Average Current I S

1,2,3 μA

ΔI S1,2,3

μA Comments

C23 3 8.6, 5.5, 4.5 1.3, 0.3, none d=15cm, LED=1, lab A

C27 3 11.3, 9.9, 7.6 0.15, 0.1, 0.05 d=15cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C29 3 12.5, 11.3, 8 0.05, 0.1, none d=5cm, LED=1, lab A

C30 3 5.75, 9.1, 15.8 0.05, none, 0.4 d=5cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C33 3 4.9, 7.9, 11.4 0.04, T3, 1.2 d=5cm, LED=1, lab A

C37 3 4.9, 7.2, 7.2 0.02, 0.2, none d=5cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C38 4 30.0, 22.0, 31.0 0.3, 0.5, T2 d=5cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C40 3 10.4, 39, 21.2 none, none, 0.6 d=5cm, LED=CW, lab A

C41 4 30.9, 22.6, 28.0 0.3, 0.6, none d=5cm, LED=CW, lab A

C60 3 7.3, 8.9, 20.8 0.2, 0.2, none d=15cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C61 4 32.3, 25.3, 29.4 T3, 0.4, none d=5cm, LED=CCW, lab A

C130 3 13.75, 15.8, 19.2 0.3, 0.6, 0.1 d=35cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C148 3 13.5, 8.2, 20.4 1.1, 0.2, 0.2 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C149 4 16.4, 14.9, 14.4 0.3, 0.5, 0.05 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C150 3 13.6, 7.0, 20.27 0.5, 0.12, 0.05 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C151 4 15.7, 13.2, 14.05 0.35, 0.25, 0.05 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C152 3 13.77, 6.68, 20.46 0.2, none, none d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C153 4 16.0, 13.14, 14.28 0.35, 0.12, 0.04 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C154 3 14.65, 6.58, 21.9 0.3, 0.06, 0.05 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C155 4 16.15, 13.68, 14.5 0.35, 0.06, 0.7 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C156 3 15.00, 6.57, 22.82 0.3, 0.12, 0.08 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C157 4 17.6, 14.35, 15.25 0.5, 0.2, 0.3 d=25cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C166 5 10.6, –, – 0.05, –, – d=30cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C166 3 33.18, –, – 0.01, –, – d=76cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C167 5 10.51, –, – 0.05, –, – d=30cm, LED=CCW, lab B

C167 3 34.58, –, – 0.02, –, – d=76cm, LED=CCW, lab B

A165 5 10.94, –, – 0.08, –, – d=30cm, LED=CCW, lab B

A168 5 10.42, –, – 0.2, –, – d=30cm, LED=CCW, lab B

None means no qualitative changes.T2, T3: See description in text.Grayed rows indicate the experiments, with parallel recording by several sensors.


Experiments with Irradiated Water

Experiments with irradiated water were performed in a similar way to those with the LED generator. A glass container with 500 ml of tap water was placed 5–15 cm from the LED generator. The generator was turned on for 5 minutes (20–30 minutes in C162–C194), then the container was stored separately from other containers. We irradiated the water several hours before the experiments (container “A”) and immediately before the experiment (container “B”). An example of the behavior of the sensors is shown in Figure 13. We placed container A for 20 minutes and then replaced it with container B for another 20 minutes. This approach was used in experiments C42–C49, where we observed a stronger reaction with container B. In experiments C50–C55 we used water irradiated on previous days. Again, container B caused a stronger reaction. In experiments C54–C194 we used only one sample of A or B and observed monotonic changes of behavior to some extent (without the step-like change characteristic of containers A and B). The parameters of the experiments are collected in Table 3.

In several experiments we observed a reaction in the detector immediately after the container with irradiated water was removed from the box (for example, experiment C53). Experiments C44 and C45 contained noisy data, where reliable identifi cation of a reaction was not possible. Despite an evident reaction in the sensors, we removed these data from evaluation as not plausible. Experiment A169 is counted as a single trial and not as an independent experiment. In total we performed 82 trials (16 independent experiments), in 24 cases of which we did not observe an evident reaction (especially for water irradiated several days before an experiment).

Figure 13. Experiments with irradiated water. (a) Experiment C42; (b) Experiment C50. (Gray area A) Container A is placed in front of the detector, d = 15 cm. (Gray area B) Container B is placed in front of the detector, d = 15 cm.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:3

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


A B BA9.95

10

10.05

10.1

10.15

10.2

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


(a) (b)

94 Serge Kernbach

TABLE 3

Overview of Experiment Series C Using Irradiated Water

N SetupNumber

Average Current I S

1,2,3 μA

ΔI S1,2,3

μA Comments

C42 3 10.0, 15.0, 22.6 4.0, 0.2, 0.5 A-7, B-0

C43 4 30.5, 25.5, 32.6 0.5, none, none A-7, B-0

C46 3 9.8, 12.2, 22.3 0.1 (T3), 0.1, none A-7, B-0

C47 4 29.6, 26.7, 31.0 none, 0.4, none A-7, B-0

C48 3 8.6, 11.6, 22.3 none, T2, 0.1 A-7, B-0

C49 4 30.8, 27.2, 31.5 0.3, T2, none A-7, B-0

C50 3 7.9, 10.1, 21.8 0.1 (T3), 0.1, 0.5 (T3) A-36, B-24

C51 4 30.1, 25.6, 30.5 0.4 (T3), T2, 0.2 A-36, B-24

C52 3 7.8, 9.8, 21.4 0.25, 0.1, none A-47, B-35

C54 3 7.6, 9.5, 21.4 0.2, 0.1, none A-52, B-40

C55 4 31.0, 25.2, 29.5 0.4, T2, 0.5 A-52, B-40

C162 3 19.5, 9.82, – 0.5, 0.02, – B-0

C163 4 18.6, 20.85, 17.8 0.04, 0.1, 0.04 B-0

C169 5 11.35, –, – 0.04, –, – B-0

C175 3 12.8, 9.0, 13.45 none, 0.05, 0.3 B-0

C176 4 12.06, 12.96, 11.5 0.06, 0.08, none B-0

C177 3 16.4, 11.6, 8.67 0.08, none, 0.12 B-0

C189 3 15.55, 14.38, 13.65 0.05 (T2), 0.04, T3 B-0

C192 4 9.06, 13.1, 6.9 0.05, 0.1, 0.1 (T3) B-0

C192 5 –, –, 11.55 –, –, 0.05 B-0

C193 5 14.3, 6.5, 11.3 0.1, 0.05, 0.3 A-24

C194 3 6.1, 11.4, 10.55 none, T2, none A-24

C194 4 8.9, 13.1, 6.12 0.2, T3, 0.04 A-24

C195 3 4.94, 11.2, 10.45 0.05, none, none A-48

C195 4 6.1, 13.5, 6.02 none, 0.1, none A-48

C195 5 13.92, 6.7, 11.1 0.04, 0.1, 0.1 A-48

C197 3 4.15, 11.1, 10.45 none, none, 0.03 A-72

A197 4 8.9, 12.6, 6.15 none, none, T3 A-72

A197 5 13.73, 6.7, 9.2 0.03, none, none A-72

None means no qualitative changes. T2, T3: See description in text. Grayed rows mark the experiments, with parallel recording by several sensors. A-52 means that container A was irradiated 52 hours before the experiment.


Figure 14. Several experiments with irradiated water.

22.5

23

23.5

24

24.5

25

05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


A B

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

32.5

05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

A B


A B11.8

12

12.2

12.4

12.6

12.8

13

13.2

13.4

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


A B26.4

26.5

26.6

26.7

26.8

26.9

27

27.1

27.2

27.3

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


30.3

30.4

30.5

30.6

30.7

30.8

30.9

31

31.1

31.2

31.3

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

A B


BA30.6

30.8

31

31.2

31.4

31.6

31.8

32

32.2

32.4

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


BA27

27.5

28

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


7.5

7.55

7.6

7.65

7.7

7.75

7.8

7.85

7.9

00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02:30 03:00 03:30 04:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

A


BA30.6

30.8

31

31.2

31.4

31.6

31.8

32

32.2

32.4

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

30.4

30.6

30.8

31

31.2

31.4

31.6

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

27

27.5

28

28.5

29

29.5

30

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


18.54

18.56

18.58

18.6

18.62

18.64

18.66

15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

8.85

8.9

8.95

9

9.05

9.1

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B13.3

13.4

13.5

13.6

13.7

13.8

13.9

14

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B12.82

12.84

12.86

12.88

12.9

12.92

12.94

12.96

12.98

13

13.02

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

16.36

16.38

16.4

16.42

16.44

16.46

16.48

16.5

16.52

16.54

16.56

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

6.75

6.8

6.85

6.9

6.95

7

09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


B

96 Serge Kernbach

Control Experiments

The control experiments were carried out under the same conditions as experiment series C; however, we used normal tap water. A container with water was rested 12 hours in the laboratory, then installed 15 cm in front of the detectors and exposed for between 30 minutes and 90 minutes. In several experiments (C62, C63, C199) the container remained in the laboratory for several days before an experiment. An overview of the control experiments is shown in Table 4. The reaction of the sensors in these experiments is signifi cantly weaker than in the previous ones. For instance, we observed a type 1 reaction with step-like changes of current, as shown for example in Figure 13 and Figure 11. From 79 trials (of 14 independent experiments) we obtained 63 negative and only 8 positive reactions. It should be noted that in the original experiments with irradiated water (Bobrov 2009) the authors also obtained reactions in the sensors in control experiments that were weaker than the reactions with the irradiated water. The dynamics of the current in several positive cases are shown in Figure 15. Based on the criteria for previous experiments, we qualifi ed several results from these experiments as positive. Within the boundaries of these experiments, we cannot identify whether these were caused by environmental noise or whether there were other pertinent factors, for instance a long resting time in the laboratory.

Discussion of Results

An overview of all experiments is given in Table 5. Since negative results are evaluated as results without any change in current, with a change of less than 0.01 μA, including where the parameters of the oscillations changed, there is doubt whether this was caused by irradiation or whether this oscillation has multiple frequencies. We excluded four datasets from the evaluation in which the sensors demonstrated a signifi cant change of current before or after the experiment, or where the data were not plausible due to noise from the environment. If two or more sensors in a series C experiment were simultaneously positive, that experiment was counted as positive.

Evaluating the experiments we performed, we can conclude that all independent experiments with the LED generator and the irradiated water are positive. Most of the experiments with the tap water are negative (except those where the tap water was rested for several days in the laboratory). We performed several statistical tests for the trials. First of all, positive trials are coded as “1”, negative trials as “0” (i.e. trials are considered as experiments with binary output, T2/T3 results are not counted), and then we ran the chi-square goodness of fi t test against the null hypothesis of the random character of the obtained data. Second, the results coded as “T1”-


TABLE 4

Overview of Control Experiments

N SetupNumber

Average Current I S

1,2,3 μA

ΔI S1,2,3

μA Comments

C56 3 7.0, 8.3, 22.1 none, none, none t = 45 min


C58 3 7.4, 8.9, 20.96 none, 0.1, none t = 80 min

C59 4 31.0, 25.2, 28.5 T2, none, none t = 80 min

C62 3 7.4, 8.9, 5.6 T2, 0.04, none t = 30 min, 120 hr

C63 4 31.0, 25.5, 35.1 none, none, T2 t = 30 min


C65 4 34, 25.5, 35.0 none, T3, none t = 40 min


C67 4 33.9, 26.5, 34.1 none, none, 0.05 t = 40 min

C68 3 13.1, 22.6, 17.7 none, T3, none t = 30 min

C69 4 19.2, 15.5, 18.8 0.02, none, none t = 30 min

C172 3 12.5, 25.5, 11.0 none, none, 2.0 t = 30 min

C172 5 10.2, –, – none, –, – t = 30 min



C179 3 10.5, 24.9, 11.22 none, T3, none t = 60 min



C182 4 10.6, 12.78, 12.1 none, none, 0.03 t = 60 min


C186 4 12.75, 10.2, 12.5 T3, none, none t = 90 min



C199 3 19.2, 11.1, 10.25 none, none, none t = 90 min, 96 hr

C199 4 10.09, 13.6, 9.2 0.03, T2, none t = 90 min

C199 5 13.42, 6.7, 10.62 none, 0.1, none t = 90 min

None means no qualitative changes. T2, T3: See description in text. Grayed rows mark the experiments, with parallel recording by several sensors. d = 15, t is the exposition of time. A-52 means that container A was irradiated 52 hours before the experiment.

98 Serge Kernbach

Figure 15. Several positive responses in control experiment series C with tap water.

8.84

8.86

8.88

8.9

8.92

8.94

8.96

8.98

9

9.02

9.04

04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


31

31.1

31.2

31.3

31.4

31.5

31.6

31.7

31.8

31.9

32

04:00 04:30 05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


7.05

7.1

7.15

7.2

7.25

7.3

7.35

7.4

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30

Curr

ent, m

kA

Time


8.75

8.8

8.85

8.9

8.95

9

9.05

9.1

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30

Curr

ent, m

kA

Time


34.3

34.4

34.5

34.6

34.7

34.8

34.9

35

35.1

35.2

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


24.4

24.6

24.8

25

25.2

25.4

25.6

04:30 05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


33.9

33.95

34

34.05

34.1

34.15

34.2

05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00


Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

21.9

22

22.1

22.2

22.3

22.4

22.5

22.6

22.7

22.8

22.9

23

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


19.16

19.18

19.2

19.22

19.24

19.26

19.28

19.3

19.32

06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time


1, “T2”-2, “T3”-3, and “N”-0 (negative) were tested by the Mann-Whitney U test for two groups of “LED generator vs. tap water” and “irradiated water vs. tap water” experiments (the null hypothesis is an identical distribution function of these groups). Finally, we considered the current in each trial (ignoring T2/T3 results) and calculated a one-sample t-test against the null hypothesis of “0” as the expected value. Results are shown in Table 5; based on obtained values we reject the null hypothesis for chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests (signifi cance level α ≤ 0.005, two-tailed). The null hypothesis for the t-test can be rejected for LED/irradiated water (the signifi cance level α = 0.005, two-tailed); however, it cannot be rejected for the tap water (signifi cance level α = 0.240, two-tailed).

From 154 evaluated trials of experiment C with the LED generator and irradiated water (32 individual experiments recorded in parallel by several sensors), 108 trials indicated a positive result and 35 trials indicated a negative result (see Figure 16).


Figure 16. Results from the trials of experiment series C.

(a) N of experiments to total N of experiments for all types of results (b) N of trials to total N of trials for all types of results (c) Confi dence interval for means, binary output of experiments: T1 is coded as 1, negative is coded as 0, T2/T3

are ignored (see also Table 5)

LED IrrdiatedWaterGenerator Experiments

Control0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.80.81

0.61

0.80

0.29

0.150.1

0.1

1.0

N o

f tr

ials

/Tota

l N

of tr

ials

reaction of type 1reaction of type 2 and 3

no reaction

0.04 0.1

(a) (b)

(c)

Comparison of the results from the LED generator and the irradiated water indicates that the irradiated water caused a weaker reaction in terms of (a) the number of responsive sensors, (b) the latent time, and (c) ΔI. The strongest impact occurred when the water was irradiated immediately before the experiment. The exposure time with the LED generator also had an impact: We observed a stronger reaction with a longer exposure time. We cannot unarguably say whether the reaction of the irradiated water can be related to a spin-based imprinting of water, as proposed in Bobrov (2009). Comparing the results with irradiated and normal water, we recorded almost no reactions from non-irradiated water. However, it is also unclear whether the several single responses from non-irradiated water were caused by environmental noise or some other factor.

In the experiments we did not observe changes of the EM fi eld and acceleration (vibrations) above the minimal resolution of the sensors used.

100 Serge Kernbach

Containers of irradiated water are passive objects and do not emit any EM fi elds. However, we need to take into account high-frequency, stationary EM waves produced by external EM emitters (for example the laptop used in laboratory B or WiFi access points in laboratory A), which potentially can infl uence the behavior of the sensors. Any parasitic capacitive, optical, acoustic, and electric couplings were excluded from the experiments. Variation of temperature is the most diffi cult issue, because it cannot be completely removed from the experiments. Moreover, it requires the development of specifi c setups and experiment methodology—this should be taken into account when replicating these experiments. In several experiments we succeeded in demonstrating a non-proportional or delayed increase in temperature in relation to a response from current sensors. Thus, despite the temperature-impact sensors, its variation does not represent the main factor for the changing current during experiments.

We also identifi ed environmental noise as one of the main diffi culties. Comparing the behavior of sensors in an empty laboratory A during the day and at night, we noted more changes in the current occurring during the day. Original works point to an anthropogenic factor, e.g., ultraweak emission from the human body (Kobayashi, Kikuchi, & Okamura 2009) as the main source of such noise. For instance, the experiments described in Bobrov (2009) were performed not only in an empty room but in an empty building.

TABLE 5

Overview of Experiment Series C and Its Statistical Evaluation*

N of N of RESULTS Mean, Std. Chi-Square M-W t-Test

Trials Exp. T1 T2/T3 Neg. Dev., Std. Err. Test U-Test (z)

LED gen. 72 – 58 3 11 0.84, 0.369, 0.044 32.014 −6.596 6.914

– 16 16 – 0 – – – –

Irr. water 82 – 50 8 24 0.68, 0.471, 0.055 9.135 −5.468 3.041

– 16 16 – 0 – – – –

Tap water 79 – 8 8 63 0.11, 0.318, 0.038 42.606 – 1.184

– 14 4 – 10 – – – –

Total 233 – – – – – – – –

– 46 – – – – – – –

* See description in text. Mean, Std. Deviation, and Std. Error are calculated for the binary output of experiments.T1 is coded as 1, negative is coded as 0, T2/T3 are ignored.


Thus, more robust experiments need to be performed in a special physical laboratory, where temperature, EM, and environmental and anthropogenic infl uences can be minimized by several orders of magnitude.

In brief, excluding EM, temperature, mechanical, optical, capacitive, and acoustic interactions, and any parasitic couplings, the publications cited mention two possible explanations for this behavior. First, Bobrov (2009, 2006) points to spin waves, which have been recently polemicized in the physics community. Experiments carried out with rotating objects, sources of radioactivity, and plant and animal cells support this theory to some extent and possibly explain interactions between biological and non-biological objects. Original publications suppose that spin waves generated by LEDs (or by the 630 nm helium–neon laser) are responsible for the spatial polarization of water dipoles in the Gouy–Chapman layer. Second, Zenin (2000) introduced stable macroclusters of water dipoles, which can exist for a long time (Zenin 2005). For instance, the behavior of a

inV on voltage electrodes in setup 2 (see Figure 21) can be explained by the appearance of such macroclusters of dipoles. Since sensors contain water, macroclusters of dipoles can infl uence conductivity and thus the current. In turn, the combination of different weak signals can affect the behavior of macroclusters. However, as mentioned in the Introduction, the goal of this work is only to replicate the cited experiments without deep physical or chemical discussions explaining the behavior of the sensors.

Conclusion

In several experiments we observed a causal dependency between switching on the LED generator or installing the water container and the reactions of the sensors. Between two and six sensors simultaneously recorded such reactions. The recorded data were evaluated about two hours before and after the experiments. The active LED generator and passive irradiated water caused a similar impact on the detectors, whereas tap water and a normal state (night hours without any objects close by) indicated mostly a monotonic dynamic in the sensors. The impact of such infl uences as temperature, EM fi elds, and others was minimized up to the level sensed by the measuring devices. Based on these results, we evaluate the main part of the replication attempt as successful.

We offer several notes regarding these experiments. First, the measured level of current is about 1−50 μA with a resolution of 0.01 μA. Measuring such a small current is sensitive to many factors: resistance of cables, input impedance of operational amplifi ers, temperature drift of electronic components, and electronic noise. Thus, while the setup has the advantage of compactness, it can be used only to detect changes. It is not intended for

102 Serge Kernbach

precise measurement of ionic processes appearing in the electric double layer. Second, the setup is protected from mechanical, optical, capacitive, temperature, and EM infl uences only up to the level allowed in a normal electronic laboratory. To improve the level of protection, for example when investigating the effect of very small infl uences, the experiments would have to be repeated in a special laboratory. We also did not investigate physico–chemical properties of water before and after experiments; these tests should be performed in such a laboratory. Third, we did not explore the impact of the geometrical placement of sensors and LED generator/water in all experiments, however it is assumed that such an impact exists and that the obtained results are infl uenced by it.

In the context of our research, the interaction between blue-light LEDs and deeply polarized electrodes introduces a new component in underwater communication. We observed this behavior in our original experiments. After performing experiment series C, this dependency became clearer. Since electric double layers are generally sensitive to mechanical and EM infl uences, it is possible that strong light or even the movement of mobile devices can be used to modulate an electric fi eld. This suggests future work.

Acknowledgment

We are very grateful to A.V. Bobrov for many suggestions on designing the experiment setup, performing the experiments, and evaluating the results.

References

Belaya, M. L., Feigel’man, M. V., & Levadnyii, V. G. (1987). Structural forces as a result of nonlocal water polarizability. Langmuir, 3(5), 648–654.

Bobrov, A. V. (1992). Investigating the mechanism of non-specifi c perception. In Современые проблемы изучения и сохранения биосферы (Volume 2). pp. N2223–В2001, М. 2001 УДК: 577.38 + 612.014.

Bobrov, A. V. (1998). Experimental substantiation of the possible mechanism of laser therapy. In Electronic Instrument Engineering Proceedings, APEIE-98 (Volume 1), 4th International Conference on Actual Problems of EIE. pp. 175–78.

Bobrov, A. V. (2002). Биологические И Физические Свойства Активированной Воды [Biological and Physical Properties of Activated Water]. IEEE Proceedings 2282.

Bobrov, A. V. (2006). Investigating a Field Concept of Consciousness [Модельное Исследование Полевой Концепции Механизма Сознания]. Orel, Russia: Orel State Technical University.

Bobrov, A. V. (2009). Interaction between spin fi elds of material objects. In Материалы международной научной конференции; Khosta, Russia; August 25–29, 2009. pp. 76–86.

Bristow, K. L., Kluitenberg, G. J., Goding, C. J., & Fitzgerald, T. S. (2001). A small multi-needle probe for measuring soil thermal properties, water content, and electrical conductivity. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 31(3), 265–280.


Dipper, T., Gebhardt, K., Kernbach, S., & von der Emde, G. (2011). Investigating the behaviour of weakly electric fi sh with a Fish Avatar. In International Workshop on Bio-Inspired Robots, Nantes, France.

von der Emde, G., Schwarz, S., Gomez, L. Budelli, R., & Grant, K. (1998). Electric fi sh measure distance in the dark. Nature, 395, 890–894.

Gruen, D. W. R., & Marcelja, S. (1983). Spatially varying polarization in water. A model for the electric double layer and the hydration force. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2, 79, 225–242.

Kernbach, S., Dipper, T., & Sutantyo, D. (2011). Multi-modal local sensing and communication for collective underwater systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile Robots and Competitions, ROBOTICA 11, Lisbon, pp. 96–101.

Kirkham, D., & Taylor, G. S. (1949). Some tests of a four-electrode probe for soil moisture measurement. Proceedings, Soil Science Society of America 14, 42–46.

Kobayashi, M., Kikuchi, D., & Okamura, H. (2009). Imaging of ultraweak spontaneous photon emission from the human body displaying diurnal rhythm. PLoS ONE, 4(7), 6256.

Kornyshev, A. A. (2007). Double-layer in ionic liquids: Paradigm change? The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 111(20), 5545–5557. PMID: 17469864.

Kumar, R., & Skinner, J. L. (2008). Water simulation model with explicit three-molecule interactions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 112(28), 8311–8318. PMID: 18570461.

Lyklema, J. (2005). Fundamentals of Interface and Colloid Science. Academic Press.Muzalewskay, N. I., & Bobrov, А. V. (1988). On a possible role of the electrical double layer in the

reaction of biological objects to external infl uences. Биофизика [Biophysics], 33(4), 725. Orion Conductivity Theory, Orion Products—The Technical Edge. Technical report. http://www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Articles/articlesFile_11377.pdfOtt, H. (1988). Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Parker, G. W. (2002). Electric fi eld outside a parallel plate capacitor. American Journal of Physics,

70(5), 502. Rai, D., Kulkarni, A. D., Gejji, S. P., & Pathak, R. K. (2008). Water clusters (H2On, n = 6–8) in external

electric fi elds. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 128(3), 034310.Schmickl, T., Thenius, R., Moslinger, C., Timmis, J., Tyrell, A. Read, M. Hilder, J. Halloy, J. Campo,

A., Stefanini, C., Manfredi, L., Orofi no, S. Kernbach, S., Dipper, T., & Sutantyo, D. (2011). CoCoRo: The Self-Aware Underwater Swarm. In Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops (SASOW), October 2011, pp. 120–126.

doi 10.1109/SASOW.2011.11Sim, M., & Kim, D. (2011). Electrolocation with an electric organ discharge waveform for

biomimetic application. Adaptive Behavior, 19(3), 172–186. Spillner, F. (1957). Vier-elektroden-konduktometrische analyse (4-ek-analyse). Chemie Ingenieur

Technik, 29(1), 24–27. Stenschke, H. (1985). Polarization of water in the metal/electrolyte interface. Journal of

Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry, 196(2), 261–274.Vegiri, A., & Schevkunov, S. V. (2001). A molecular dynamics study of structural transitions in

small water clusters in the presence of an external electric fi eld. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(9), 4175–4185.

Zenin, S. (2000). Scientifi c Foundation and Application Problems of Energo-Information Interactions in Nature [Научные основы и прикладные проблемы энергоинформацион-ных взаимодействий в природе и обществе]. Мoscow: Russian State Library.

Zenin, S. (2005). Structured State of Water as a Basis for Monitoring of Living Systems [Структурированное состояние воды как основа управления по-ведением и безопасностью живых систем]. Moscow: Russian State Library.

104 Serge Kernbach

Appendix AExperiment Setup

The original experiments (Bobrov 2009) used DC voltage up to 30 V. For the replication experiments we used the well-known four-electrode scheme (see Figure 17). The electrodes Vout take their voltage from a digital–analog converter (DAC) in the range of ±5 V. The current fl owing in the DAC circuit is converted to a voltage and digitalized by an analog–digital converter (ADC). The voltage from Vin electrodes is amplifi ed by an operational amplifi er and also digitalized by an ADC. Both the DAC and ADC are connected to the microcontroller. Data are transmitted via a USB interface to a laptop and sampled at a frequency of 1 Hz in real time (each measurement from the ADC is time-stamped). We used two versions of this equipment. The fi rst version has an instrumental operational amplifi er (AD8226), external DAC (AD5322), and ADC (AD7656), and provides an accuracy of current and voltage measurement of μA and mV ranges of 0.1%.

The second version uses a programmable system on chip (PSoC)

Figure 17. Structural scheme of the experiment setup. Voltage electrodes are installed only in setups 2 and 3.

OpAmp

Vout

Vin

Vin

Vout current to

temperature

converter

voltage

3D accelerometer

ADC

DAC

USB

microcontroller

PSoC 5 CY8CKIT-014

I

V

I

Figure 18. Noise produced by the DAC and power supply.


Figure 19. Description of the experiment setups. (a) Setup 1, with a 1000-ml glass bottle containing a plastic tube of 3 cm diameter. The electrodes are made of copper (in the form of a ring) and installed on the plastic tube, distance between electrodes as shown. The glass bottle is closed by a plastic cover, with the electrodes inside. (b) Setup 2 uses 300 ml water with 8 electrodes made from stainless steel of 1 mm diameter. (c) Setup 3 has 3 independent sets of electrodes made from stainless steel of 1 mm diameter. Corresponding containers are glass jars of about 50 ml. (d) Setup 4 has 3 independent sets of electrodes. The anode is a 1 mm wire, the cathode is a cylinder, both electrodes are made from stainless steel.

Vout

Vin

8cm5cm

Vin

Vout

24mm

12mm

V

V

V

V

V

V

b

b

a

a

out

out

in

in

in

in

86mm

o= mm36

58mm

Vout

Vout

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

CY8C5588AXI 060 with internal amplifi ers, DAC, and ADC. Accuracy of measurement is about 3%. The system is powered at 5 V through a USB interface from a laptop. The noise from the DAC and power supply is shown in Figure 18 and is in the range ±10 mV, about 0.3% of the voltage generated. To reduce the level of noise, a software fi lter averages values

106 Serge Kernbach

from the ADC (current and voltage) within a sliding frame of fi ve steps.The electronics also contain a 3D accelerometer KXSC7-2050

(sensitivity 660 mV/g) and three types of temperature sensors: NCP21XV103J03RA (installed on PCB), LM35AH, and AD592CNZ (installed in the containers with electrodes). The sensitivity of temperature measurement is below 0.01 C with a 20-bit ADC. Setups 3, 4, and 5 have two, two, and four temperature sensors, respectively. Data from temperature, acceleration sensors, and voltage of power supply were recorded during all the experiments to demonstrate the infl uence of these factors. For calibration and test measurements, an Agilent Technology oscilloscope DSO1014A and true RMS Multimeter 72-7730 for accurate DC current measurement in the range ± (0.1% + 15) were used.

All setups were shielded in a similar manner. All sensors from setups 3 and 4 were fi rst inserted into metal cans made of 0.5 mm steel (three sensors in each) (see Figure 1), and then both cans were placed into a box made from 1 mm brass. Each sensor from setup 5 was inserted into a pipe made of 3 mm brass. All metal cans, boxes, and pipe were grounded. Temperature shields were experimentally selected from several materials. First we used boxes made of 80-mm–thick styrofoam; however, it seems this material is not suitable for experiments. Finally, all metal containers were lined with 10-mm rubber matting and empty space was fi lled up with wool.

Since the fi rst setup remained from our previous experiments and had copper electrodes, it was removed from further tests. All other electrodes were made from chromium–nickel stainless steel (setups 2, 3, 4) and platinum (setup 5) of 1 mm diameter. Setup 5 is similar to setup 3, only the electrodes are made of platinum and they can be shifted inside a glass container. In all setups we used deionized water produced by Walter Schmidt Chemie GmbH (osmosis approach) and double-distilled water produced by AuxynHairol.

The LED generator is shown in Figure 20. It consists of 169 blue-light (470 nm) LEDs LC503FBL1-15Q-A3 placed in an area 120 × 120 mm2. These have a luminous intensity of 11 cd and opening angle of 15 degrees. The LED generator has eight switchable fi elds and is controlled by an ATMega328 microcontroller. Powering of the digital part and LEDs is independent for each, and the voltage applied to LEDs can be varied within 2.5–6 V. In other experiments with deeply polarized electrodes, we applied up to 48 V to LEDs—we have experimental evidence that LEDs with a higher voltage impact more intensively on sensors. The microcontroller has a temperature sensor. For experiments without an operator, the microcontroller monitors the environmental temperature and can autonomously start an experiment when the variation of temperature is


Figure 20. The LED generator. (a) Structure of the LED generator (b) LED generator made with 169 blue-light (470 nm) LEDs (c) LED generator: rotation of sectors CCW and CW

Powersupply0-6V

8x independentN MOSFETSTS2DNF30L

LEDsegments 1-8

LDO 3V,XC6206

UARTinterface to PC

microcontrollerATMega328

temperaturesensor

...

...

(a)

(b) (c)

rotation CW

rotation CCW

low (there is a log of all activities of the LED generator). We programmed four modes of operation: oscillation 1 (LED = 1, “on” pulse—1 μs, “off”—333 μs), oscillation 2 (LED = 2, “on” pulse—100 ms, “off”—100 ms), and rotation of sectors CCW and CW (LED = CCW, CW, “on” pulse—100 ms, “off”—100 ms) (see Figure 20(c)). To avoid parasitic coupling, the LED generator ran on two, three, or four D-size batteries.

108 Serge Kernbach

Loss of sensitivity. After a while, sensors lose their sensitivity. This loss shows when the current quickly stabilizes to a particular value and does not indicate even normal environmental noise. This effect was confi rmed by A.V. Bobrov for his sensors. The timeframe within which a sensor loses sensitivity varies between a few days and a few weeks. We surmised that contamination of the electrodes was the reason for this effect; when it appeared, we replaced all the electrodes and changed the water. Sensors are also less sensitive when they relax after disturbances or after powering the systems. Usually, we waited for 6–8 hours after powering before operating the sensors. After disturbances, the relaxation time is between 3 and 12 hours. Loss of sensitivity could be one of the reasons why, in several experiments, some sensors did not record any changes of current, whereas other sensors did.

Voltage in ainV and b

inV electrodes. In the second and third setups we used a

inV and binV electrodes to test the hypothesis that macroclusters

of water dipoles were created (Zenin 2000). The idea is inspired by Orion Conductivity Theory (no date), in which a “current position” ( b

inV ) and a “fi eld position” ( a

inV ) in the four-electrode scheme are distinguished. Analyzing the state of the art in this area, we discovered a number of works (Vegiri & Schevkunov 2001, Rai, Kulkarni, Gejji, & Pathak 2008) concerning the clustering of water in electric fi elds as well as the simulation of clustering behavior (Kumar & Skinner 2008). Based on these works, we anticipated different potential dynamics of a

inV and binV electrodes. This

was experimentally confi rmed, for instance in Figure 21 we plot ainV and

binV in two particular experiments. It can be seen that the potential for a

inV can change its polarity (the polarity of Vout remained constant); artefacts on

Figure 21. “Current position” vs. “fi eld position”. (a) Experiment A10 (b) Experiment A15

(a) (b)


Figure 22. DAC current, “fi eld position,” and “current position”.

See description in the text. Dynamics of the current

in the DAC circuit (a), and the voltage on b

inV in the electrodes (b) and on a

inV in the electrodes (c) are shown.

30

30.2

30.4

30.6

30.8

31

31.2

31.4

08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00

Curr

ent, μ

A

Time

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.02

0.022

0.024

08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00

Voltage, V

Time

Voltage on V electrodesb

in

0.3665

0.367

0.3675

0.368

0.3685

0.369

0.3695

0.37

0.3705

08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00

Voltage, V

Time

Voltage on V electrodesa

in

(a) (b)

(c)

one set of electrodes were not observed on other sets of electrodes. In the preliminary experiments with the LED generator (discussed in the section Experiment Series C) we recorded the dynamics a

inV and binV and the

current in the DAC circuit, as shown in Figure 22.We can see that a

inV demonstrates similar dynamics on the current, that is the voltage of the four- and six-electrode schemes are also sensitive to non-EM fi elds. Since these experiments move away from the original approach (Bobrov 2006), we decided to postpone them and, for this work, concentrate on current detection. In setups 3, 4, and 5 we analyzed only the current fl owing through the DAC circuit.

Auto-oscillation mode. As mentioned in Bobrov (2009, 2006), sensors can enter a so-called “auto-oscillation” mode. The period of these oscillations varies between a few minutes and a few hours. We are unable to estimate the current range in which the auto-oscillation can appear. We observed the spontaneous start of oscillations between 4 and 40 μA, that is, in the whole range of current measurement. Bobrov (2006) suggested that this mode is more sensitive to non-EM fi elds.

111

COMMENTARY

The Infl uence of Reichenbach’s Concept of Od

CARLOS S. ALVARADO

[email protected]

Submitted 10/27/12, Accepted 10/31/12

Michael Nahm’s (2012) recent article about Reichenbach and his concept of Od, in JSE 26:2, Summer 2012, reminds us of important work done in the past that has been forgotten by many current students of psychic phenomena and related topics. I fi nd particularly interesting how the concept of Od infl uenced a variety of conceptual developments, something I would like to briefl y discuss in this Commentary. While Nahm is aware of this, and addresses the issue briefl y, he appropriately in my view did not make this the focus of this paper because his purpose was a general overview of Reichenbach for the modern reader.

One of the main infl uences of Reichenbach was how his work was used by others to develop and support the development of unorthodox concepts of force in relation to psychic phenomena, a model that existed before in the mesmeric movement and in other contexts. A prominent example of this was how Reichenbach’s Od was one of the inspiring factors behind the development of ideas of forces to explain physical manifestations such as those associated with mediums during the beginnings of spiritualism. This is clearly seen in American books published during the 1850s in which various authors speculated on the powers of the living medium to explain various mediumistic manifestations. A prominent one was Edward C. Rogers’ Philosophy of Mysterious Agents, Human and Mundane (1853). Reichenbach’s work was used by Rogers repeatedly throughout the book to justify his acceptance of the existence of a new force associated with the nervous system. This was basically a biophysical force coming from the bodies of mediums and others, an idea that allowed him to apply the concept of a non-spirit–based agency to explain spiritualistic manifestations such as movement of objects, raps, and luminous effects. He wrote in his Introduction:

In our researches with regard to the phenomena treated in the following pages, we have found so many of the characteristics of an agent diff ering so


112 Carlos S. Alvarado

essentially from those of Electricity and Magnetism proper, and bearing so many of the characteristics of identity with the Odyle of Reichenbach, that we feel forced to admit this identity. (Rogers 1853:20–21)

Rogers also used Reichenbach as a guide to analyze several cases, such as the so-called electrical girl Angélique Cottin, a once-well-known poltergeist case, in whose presence objects were reported to move (Owen 1864, Tanchou 1846). In his view the attraction and repulsion phenomena of Cottin followed Reichenbach’s ideas of polarity. He also related Od to the phenomena of the divining rod (p. 272).

The concept of Od was also important to support the notion of forces responsible for mediumistic phenomena in other writings (e.g., Guppy 1863, Mahan 1855). An interesting example of the centrality of Od in speculations of this sort were the ideas of physician B. W. Richmond presented in his book with Samuel B. Brittan A Discussion of the Facts and Philosophy of Ancient and Modern Spiritualism (Brittan & Richmond 1853).

The Od-force of Reichenbach [wrote Richmond] comes to our aid in the “modern mysteries.” It is an imponderable fl uid . . . . The human body having it in abundance transmits it to inanimate matter—the human will having control over it—as easily grasps and impels it, when chairs and tables have been charged with it, as when a muscle or a nerve has been charged with it. (Brittan & Richmond 1853:70) Such infl uences were not limited to the United States. Od made its

way to the writings of individuals in other countries. Examples in England and in Germany were Herbert Mayo (1851) and Carl du Prel (1899/1907), respectively. The latter, who was discussing the subject in the later part of the nineteenth century, believed that: “The key of magic is in animal magnetism, what Reichenbach has designated with the name of od. It is the physics of magic . . .” (du Prel 1899/1907:13). In his view Od accounted for psychic phenomena and other manifestations.

The infl uence of Reichenbach was also evident in France in the work of Albert de Rochas. In fact, de Rochas greatly popularized Reichenbach’s work in France in several books (de Rochas 1887:45–50, 1891, 1895:2–5, 189–190). A presentation of Reichenbach’s lectures was preceded by various essays authored by de Rochas introducing the Baron and presenting a discussion of those who conducted work relevant to his.

Like Reichenbach, de Rochas believed Od was a vital principle related to the human body. He wrote in Le Fluide des Magnétiseurs:

The Influence of Reichenbach’s Concept of Od 113

The odic movement, called a current, comes mainly from the brain, de-scends down through the nerves of the face and goes to its corresponding branches. Finally, it is exhaled in the air, rendered sensible by impressions of heat and cold that it causes on the sensitives, is made visible in the form of effl uvia in plain day, and as lights in darkness. The whole body seems bright; the head seems to have an aureole; the hands, the fi ngers, and the toes throw long streams of odic light. (de Rochas 1891:104)

Reichenbach’s Od was an important part of the context in which de Rochas (1895) conducted his well-known studies of the exteriorization of sensibility. In a later work entitled Les Frontières de la Science, de Rochas (1902) discussed the concept of a psychic force and Reichenbach’s work and referred to him as “the man who is, without any possible comparison, the one who has studied the issue with the most care and talent” (de Rochas 1902:29). He organized the discussion of psychic forces in sections about the precursors of Reichenbach, Reichenbach’s work, and Reichenbach’s successors. Interestingly, de Rochas also related Od to the astral double (de Rochas 1906).

Spiritualists received the gospel of Od in different ways. Some were not convinced that it had the explanatory power to account for spiritualistic manifestations in the way Rogers, Mahan, and others suggested, as was the case of Samuel B. Brittan (Brittan & Richmond 1853). Others had different views. One of them stated:

Mediumship seems to depend upon the presence in, and evolution from, the persons of its subjects, of a very subtle fl uid—that which the German Von Reichenbach calls “human-od.” When this “od” is electrical or nega-tive, the party becomes a rapper or “physical medium.” When it is positive or magnetic, the subject is a trance or mental medium of some sort . . . (Randolph 1860:27)

John W. Edmonds wrote about the existence of an electric body, a principle bridging the soul and the physical body. According to Edmonds: “In the earth-life its presence is manifested by that odic light of which Reichenbach speaks . . .” (Edmonds 1874:119).

In later years French spiritist Gabriel Delanne (1900) discussed Reichenbach’s Od. He implied that such a principle was consistent with spiritist teachings. In particular he referred to the idea that spirits of the dead cannot act on matter without taking the “necessary force from a living being” (Delanne 1900:641). This force, Delanne said, was visible to “the sensitives discovered by Baron Reichenbach, and by some magnetic or hypnotic subjects . . . .” (Delanne 1900:641).

114 Carlos S. Alvarado

Reichenbach’s work served yet another function. A small group of people utilized Reichenbach’s work to argue for the power of the mind to create illusory phenomena, a topic discussed before in relation to mesmerism and other phenomena. The individuals in question saw the performances of Reichenbach’s sensitives as the product of suggestion and expectation. This was the case of James Braid in The Power of the Mind Over the Body (1846). As he wrote:

But it is an undoubted fact that with many individuals, and especially of the highly nervous, and imaginative, and abstractive classes, a strong direc-tion of inward consciousness to any part of the body, especially if attended with the expectation or belief of something being about to happen, is quite suffi cient to change the physical action of the part, and to produce such im-pressions from this cause alone, as Baron Reichenbach attributes to his new force. Thus every variety of feeling may be excited from an internal or mental cause . . . . (Braid 1846:6)

Later writers—Thomas Laycock (1851:389), William A. Hammond (1870:240), and Willliam B. Carpenter (1877:31), among others—presented variations of Braid’s ideas assuming the infl uence of suggestion and expectation. Henri Beaunis (1884:197) stated that Reichenbach’s tests showed the “infl uence of imagination, or, better, of a dominant idea in the production of sensations . . . .” H owever, the discussions presented by those men were less detailed than Braid’s.

In summary, like the theoretical construct of animal magnetism, Reichenbach’s concept of Od had many infl uences and uses. It provided the basis for speculation about a physical force to account for spiritualistic phenomena, and it inspired many to develop the idea of imagination to account for the unexplained perceptions of luminosities. The discussions and reactions to the concept of Od affected the conceptual development of spiritualism and psychical research.

CARLOS S. ALVARADO

[email protected]

References

Beaunis, H. (1884). Recherches Expérimentales sur les Conditions de l’Activité Cérébrale et sur la Physiologie des Nerfs (Volume 1). Paris: J. B. Baillière.

Braid, J. (1846). The Power of the Mind Over the Body: An Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Phenomena Attributed by Baron Reichenbach and Others to a “New Imponderable.” London: John Churchill.

The Influence of Reichenbach’s Concept of Od 115

Brittan, S. B., & Richmond, B. W. (1853). A Discussion of the Facts and Philosophy of Ancient and Modern Spiritualism. New York: Partridge & Brittan.

Carpenter W. B. (1877). Mesmerism, Spiritualism, &c.: Historically & Scientifi cally Considered. London: Longmans, Green.

Delanne, G. (1900). Les recherches de Reichenbach et la science moderne. Revue Scientifi que & Morale du Spiritisme, 5, 641–648.

de Rochas, A. (1887). Les Forces Non Défi nies: Recherches Historiques et Expérimentales. Paris: G. Masson.

de Rochas, A. (1891). Le Fluide des Magnétiseurs. Paris: Georges Carré.de Rochas, A. (1895). L’Extériorisation de la Sensibilité: Étude Expérimentale et Historique. Paris:

Chamuel.de Rochas, A. (1902). Les Frontières de la Science. Paris: Librairie des Sciences Psychologiques.de Rochas, A. (1906). New experiments relative to the astral body and magnetic “rapport.” Annals

of Psychical Science, 4, 120–125.du Prel, C. (1907). La Magie: Science Naturelle. Liége: H. Vaillant-Carmanne. [First published in

German 1899]Edmonds, J. W. (circa 1874). Letters and Tracts on Spiritualism (edited by J. Burns). London: J. Burns.[Guppy, S.] (1863). Mary Jane; Or, Spiritualism Chemically Explained. London: John King.Hammond, W. A. (1870). The physics and physiology of spiritualism. North American Review, 110,

233–260.Laycock, T. (1851). Odyle, mesmerism, electro-biology, & etc. British and Foreign Medico-

Chirurgical Review, 8, 378–431.Mahan, A. (1855). Modern Mysteries Explained and Exposed in Four Parts. Boston: J. P. Jewett. Mayo, H. (1851). On the Truths Contained in Popular Superstitions (third edition). Edinburgh:

William Blackwood.Nahm, M. (2012). The Sorcerer of Cobenzl and His Legacy: The Life of Baron Karl Ludwig von

Reichenbach, His Work and Its Aftermath. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 26, 381–407.

Owen, R. D. (1864). The electric girl of La Perrière. Atlantic Monthly, 14, 284–292.Randolph, P. B. (1860). The Unveiling: Or What I Think of Spiritualism. Newburyport: William H.

Huse.Rogers, E. C. (1853). Philosophy of Mysterious Agents, Human and Mundane. Boston, MA: J. P.

Jewett.Tanchou, S. (1846). Enquête sur l’authenticité des phénomènes electriques d’Angelique Cottin. Paris:

Germer Baillère.

117

OBITUARY

Archie E. Roy Dies at 88

Archie was Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of Glasgow. An asteroid is named after him in recognition of his contribution to Astronomy: Asteroid 5806 Archieroy. He was a prolifi c author, and not just on academic topics; in fact, six of his twenty books were novels.

Archie’s other scientifi c passion was investigating the paranormal. This interest began when he was a student at the University of Glasgow, when one day while browsing through the University library he came upon books on paranormal topics by noted scientists. His fi rst reaction was “What’s all this rubbish doing in a University library?” As he later said to me, at least he had the grace to read some of them. However, he was impressed by much of what he read, and he resolved to pursue the topic further. I met Archie in 1987, and thereafter we embarked on a series of experiments with mediums and healers. Three of our published papers are in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, and they document a fi ve-year rigorous practical study of mediumistic information transfer in conditions up to triple blind.

Archie was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the British Interplanetary Society. He was Past President of the Society for Psychical Research London and the Founding President of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research. Other positions included Patron of the Churches Fellowship, Scotland, for Psychical and Spiritual Studies, and membership in the Scientifi c and Medical Network. Archie lectured on both of his passions throughout the world. For many years he gave 10-week evening classes in Psychical Research at the University of Glasgow, and seven years ago I collaborated with him to expand this to a 20-week course.

Archie was in every sense a gentleman who was liked and respected by everyone, and whose personality and dry sense of humor will be sorely missed. His favorite expression was:

If when I die I fi nd that I have not survived, I will be very surprised.

TRICIA ROBERTSON

[email protected]

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 27, No. 1, p. 117, 2013 0892-3310/13

119

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Registering Parapsychological Experiments

A webpage for registering parapsychological experiments has been implemented by the Koestler Parapsychology Unit (KPU) at the University of Edinburgh, with Jim Kennedy advising on the development of the registry. The value of study registration for a controversial area such as parapsychology has been mentioned many times over the years. Prospective registration of experiments provides a database for research synthesis that is not subject to possible reporting or publication biases. Registration also increases confi dence by providing clear evidence that the key hypotheses and analyses were planned prior to conducting the experiment. Among other benefi ts, registration should be of value to editors and reviewers during the publication process. Registration of experiments is a well-established practice in medical research and enhances the credibility of a study. The KPU registry webpage is at:

http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/TrialRegistry.html

We expect that other options for study registration will become available in the future. Our intention is for the KPU registry webpage to also serve as a resource that provides information about other registration options as they become available.

CAROLINE WATT

Koestler Parapsychology Unit, Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology, & Language SciencesUniversity of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, UK

[email protected]




Magnetic Anomalies and the Paranormal

In his article “Magnetic Anomalies and the Paranormal” in JSE 26:4 (Ralphs 2012), John D. Ralphs notes that correlations have been found between geomagnetic fl uctuations and hallucinatory visions, poltergeists, PK phenomena, and ESP. Ralphs argues that “. . . it is a distinct possibility—indeed, a defi nite probability—that the active agent in most such cases is NOT the magnetic fl uctuations themselves, but the cosmic rays that cause them.” Ralphs describes the nature of these cosmic rays emitted from the Sun: He asserts that a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is a stream of cosmic rays that “can be imagined in terms of a gigantic volcanic eruption ejecting millions of tons of this electrically charged ‘dust’ at speeds in excess of four million miles per hour.” Ralphs further asserts that these cosmic rays create the Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis).

The Sun does indeed emit cosmic rays, which can travel at the speeds approaching the speed of light, but these are not the constituents of a CME, and they are not responsible for geomagnetic fl uctuations. Geomagnetic fl uctuations, and the Aurora Borealis, are caused by a plasma of low-energy particles emitted from the Sun, traveling at between 50 and 1200 km/sec (Kivelson & Russel 1995, Campbell 2003, Kallenrode 2004).

Correlations between mental phenomena and geomagnetic fl uctuations cannot be due to cosmic rays, as the latter arrive at the Earth one to three days before the plasma responsible for the fl uctuations.

ADRIAN RYAN

[email protected]

References

Campbell, W. H. (2003). Introduction to Geomagnetic Fields. Cambridge University Press.Kallenrode, M. (2004). Space Physics: An Introduction to Plasma and Particles in the Heliosphere and

Magnetospheres. Springer-Verlag.Kivelson, M. G., & Russel, C. (199 5). Introduction to Space Physics. Cambridge University Press.Ralphs, J. D. (2012). Magnetic anomalies and the paranormal. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration,

26(4), 781–790.

121


Response to Adrian Ryan

Thank you very much indeed for your helpful correction to my JSE article “Magnetic Anomalies and the Paranormal” (Ralphs 2012). I am not surprised at the error, as my last serious consideration of cosmic rays was seventy years ago (I qualifi ed in 1943). But I hope that you agree that it does not affect the point I hoped to make, that the simulation of magnetic anomaly effects using magnetic fi elds only cannot claim to be complete or authoritative.

Can I take this opportunity of asking your opinion on an associated matter on which I have failed to fi nd any authoritative information? I maintain that study of the actual generation of action potentials in a neural axon of the brain establishes that the movement of electrical charges is almost entirely radial to the axon, so that the external magnetic fi elds generated at either end of a diameter will be opposed, and tend to cancel out. I suggest that the very low level of magnetoencephalography fi elds detected is because they are received only from epiphenomenal divergencies from the mathematical model (such as bends or junctions). This would account for the very low level of magnetic changes detectable external to the skull.

Again, thank you for your comment.

JOHN D. RALPHS

[email protected]

Reference

Ralphs, J. D. (2012). Magnetic anomalies and the paranormal. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 26(4), 781–790.


123


BOOK REVIEW

The Risks of Prescription Drugs, edited by Donald W. Light. Columbia University Press, 2010. 184 pp. $45 (hardcover), $15 (paperback). ISBN 978-0231146937.

The traditional concern of anomalistics has been to demonstrate that its interests are substantive and worth attending to, within a wider social context that has treated mainstream science as a touchstone of an authenticity that anomalistics still has to earn. Increasingly over the last few decades, however, mainstream science has become less and less trustworthy as a result of excessive competition and concomitant dogmatism (Bauer 2012a). This has happened quite markedly in medical science and practice, and The Risks of Prescription Drugs describes this retreat from reliability.

Complementary and alternative medicine have traditionally been decried by mainstreamers and their groupies on two related grounds: that any claimed successes of alternative treatments can be ascribed to the placebo effect rather than to the treatment, and that eschewing mainstream treatment robs patients of health-safeguarding, possibly life-saving benefi ts.

The Risks of Prescription Drugs takes the wind out of both sails. Eschewing rather than accepting drug-based mainstream treatment can safeguard health and save lives. Moreover, the ability to summon the placebo effect is no mean feat and brings tangible benefi ts (Brody & Brody 2000).

The Risks of Prescription Drugs covers much ground succinctly but comprehensively and with full documentation. The subject is of concern for everyone, because prescription drugs have become so widely used. The context for this pandemic of promiscuous prescribing includes: Vastly expanded defi nition of illness: 1) Doctors used to be consulted

when there was obviously something wrong, when one felt ill. Nowadays, by contrast, illness is defi ned by biomarkers, surrogates for clinical condition: blood pressure, blood sugar, EKG, etc. Departures from population averages for such numbers are defi ned as illness or potential illness even when the “patient” seems in perfectly good symptom-free health, and drugs are prescribed to bring about population-average numbers for the individual.2) Normal conditions are redefi ned as illness, in particular natural changes with age. Menopause is defi ned as something whose effects should be eliminated, for example.

124 Book Reviews

Drugs for all seasons: Infectious diseases have been treated effectively with drugs, antibiotics that kill intruding bacteria or parasites selectively enough that host tissues remain relatively unharmed. The major virus-borne diseases have been stymied effectively through vaccination. Now that infectious diseases are largely controlled, drugs and vaccines are being applied against non-infectious conditions that have been defi ned as illness even though they are normal accompaniments of living and aging (Bauer 2012b). Symptoms and not causes are being treated: Blood pressure

and other such measures are markers, not ailments. Yet deviations from population-average numbers are defi ned as ill health or potential ill health and markers are treated as though they were causes.

One of the authors (Howard Brody) of The Risks of Prescription Drugs is an MD, the others are sociologists specializing in economic or medical issues. With copious citing of the research and review literature, they describe the parlous state of contemporary medical practice: dominated by the prescribing of drugs that are often unsafe, often not as good as those they replace, and exorbitantly and unwarrantedly expensive. Regulation is quite inadequate, in part because the pertinent agencies are specifi cally hobbled by laws and by gross underfunding.

Those circumstances are even less excusable since many books over the last decade or so have described various aspects of this state of affairs—books by well-informed people: editors of medical journals and physicians both in academe and in medical practice as well as trustworthy science writers and journalists (Bauer no date). But these comprehensive critiques have so far had no discernable effect. Pharmaceutical companies have been able to bend Congress and federal agencies to their own benefi t. Sooner or later this dysfunctional bubble must burst, under pressure both from economics and from increasing recognition of the harm done by “side” effects of drugs that should never have been prescribed, some of which should never have been approved in the fi rst place.

Here are some of the salient points: Senator Estes Kefauver held hearings in the 1950s that revealed

defi ciencies and dangers that have not been reduced let alone rectifi ed since then (pp. 47–48.). Retroactive evaluation revealed that hundreds of drugs in common use were not effective; they had been approved on the basis of unsound submissions by the manufacturers (pp. 50–51).Political interference has emasculated drug evaluation (p. 51 ff.).

The defi nition of normal conditions as illness and associated advertising has meant that ~80% of adult Americans and ~50% of children take at least one prescription drug (p. 24). About 20% of seniors take ten or more.

Book Reviews 125

— Menopause was declared a treatable disorder many decades ago. Over time it turned out that the supposed cure could be worse than the supposed disorder (Chapter 5). — Diagnoses of Attention Defi -cit Hyperactivity Disorder have increased from less than 1% two decades ago to nearly 8% by 2003. Two million children take stimulants to treat this condition (p. 93). — About 10% of teenagers are diagnosed as having a Major Depressive Disorder and are chiefl y treated with drugs (p. 94). But the effi cacy of antidepressants is minimal, e.g., 65% vs. 58% for placebo, among pre-teen children (p. 95). — Prescriptions of psychotropic drugs increased seven-fold dur-ing the 1990s (p. 100). “Social anxiety disorder” is said to affect six times as many people as a decade earlier (pp. 103–104).Drugs are prescribed not only for manifest illness, but also for

people said to be at risk of illness for such reasons as elevated blood pressure or genetic predisposition. If that trend continues, the results could be disastrous (pp. 111–112).Clinical trials that form the basis for drug approval are typically

too small and too short to properly test safety and effi cacy (p. 7). Trials are also readily biased in many ways (pp. 15–16). That they are biased in actual practice is demonstrated by the fact that trials funded by a given company almost always yield a result favorable to that company’s drug (p. 81). — The Food and Drug Administration often approves drugs cham-pioned by manufacturers even against the advice of its own in-house experts. Well-known drugs bearing serious risks or little advantage over others in-clude Avandia, Bextra, Celebrex, Crestor, Lamisil, Levitra, Singulair (p. 6). — Statins do not have the claimed benefi t of reducing risk of car-diovascular disease by lowering cholesterol levels. They do have seriously damaging other effects (Chapter 3). — Most new drugs are no better than the ones they replace. Often they are not as good, as well as often more toxic, but always they are more expensive. Only 2–3% are signifi cant advances, and only ~10% represent any improvement at all (pp. 5, 11).The frequency of adverse events caused by prescription drugs was

126 Book Reviews

ten times greater in 2005 than in 1985 (p. 3). The number of serious adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration is on the order of only 1% of all the occurring serious adverse events (p. 3). — After toxic effects become known, warnings on labels are slow to appear, for reasons both of bureaucratic inertia and infl uence exerted by drug companies (p. 11). Drugs continue to be marketed even after serious toxicity has become known to manufacturers and the FDA, for example with streptomycin or Vioxx (pp. 46–47). — One estimate claims the lifetime risk of severe injury from a prescription drug to be 26 in 100. By comparison, the risk from an auto ac-cident is 2 in 100 (p. 54).Most doctors get most of their information from drug companies,

through visits from sales representatives, and from advertisements in medical journals (p. 46). Many doctors do not recognize well-established side effects of drugs, for instance muscle aches and cognitive impairment associated with statins; patients remain uninformed and at serious risk (p. 10).Drug companies spend far more on marketing than on research (p.

5). They break laws against marketing off-label use (p. 22) and continue to pay enormous fi nes—hundreds of millions of dollars—because their profi ts from such marketing are much greater (p. 6).The national costs of prescription drugs are enormous, owing in part

to Congressional deference to pharmaceutical companies (p. 26 ff.). Sales of psychotropic drugs increased tenfold in a decade to ~$6.7 billion by 2001 (p. 110).

The weakest part of The Risks of Prescription Drugs is the Epilogue, which suggests strategies to correct the present dysfunctions in a striking table (p. 159) that contrasts present-day practices with what would serve the public good. The suggested strategies amount to eliminating confl icts of interest, relying on independent evaluations of drugs, and funding federal agencies well enough to make that possible. It seems highly unlikely that the political will for this can be summoned in the foreseeable future. Nothing will be done until the infl uence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry is curbed, but that industry has swamped Congress with lobbyists and campaign contributions. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Pharma has the best Congress that it could buy.

In addition to its important specifi c substance, this book also illustrates the general applicability of the aphorism that war is too important to be left to the generals. On any matter of public policy, the specialists should not be the decision makers. They see trees but not the landscape, and they suffer inevitable confl icts of interest, intellectual as much as material. Historians and sociologists have discerned fatal problems with medical

Book Reviews 127

practices that remain unacknowledged by professional medical associations and offi cial agencies. Some individual specialists do try to raise the alarm over inappropriate mainstream professional practices, of course, but these minority voices are generally ignored in this era of professional dogmatism (Bauer 2012a).

HENRY H. BAUER

Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & SciencesVirginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

[email protected], www.henryhbauer.homestead.com

References

Bauer, H. H. (no date). Bibliography of writings about the defi ciencies of modern medicine. http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/What_sWrongWithMedicine.pdf

Bauer, H. H. (2012a). Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifl e the Search for Truth. Jeff erson, NC: McFarland.

Bauer, H. H. (2012b). Seeking immortality? Challenging the drug-based medical paradigm. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 26(4): 867–880.

Brody, H., & Brody, D. (2000). The Placebo Response: How You Can Release the Body’s Inner Pharmacy for Better Health. HarperCollins.

BOOK REVIEW

The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory

of the Paranormal by Lawrence LeShan. Allworth Press, 2003. 320 pp. $22.94. ISBN 978-1581152739.

The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist, fi rst published in 1974, reads as if it were published this week. The premise of this classic remains relevant to contemporary parapsychologists and to those of other disciplines taking part in the study of consciousness. LeShan describes his book as, “a story of adventure, as a search for the meaning of impossible events,” giving examples of anomalous perceptions from laboratory experiments, spontaneous cases, mediumistic cases, and from the psychotherapy setting which beg for a theory to explain them. This book describes his theory of the paranormal and the adventure of shaping this theory.

LeShan interviewed serious sensitives who had a high frequency of paranormal events in their lives. During the years of LeShan’s inquiry, it became clear that at the moment when paranormal information was acquired (when “telepathy” or “clairvoyance” or “precognition” was happening), sensitives were reacting to the world as if it were constructed and “worked” differently than what we normally believe it to be. At those moments they used a different metaphysical structure of the world than our ordinary, everyday, metaphysical structure.

LeShan identifi ed two other groups, mystics and Einsteinian physicists, who reached the identical conclusion: that there are two ways of being in the world, which LeShan calls the Sensory Reality for our usual way of knowing, and the Clairvoyant Reality, independently described by these groups where information is gained other than through the senses, with a unity of subject and object and an experiential quality of deep wholeness. We get a chance to see this, almost intimately, by reading Eileen Garrett’s sessions with LeShan and in quotes from other sensitives, mystics, and physicists, bringing the Clairvoyant Reality within our grasp.

Out of these fi ndings a theory of the paranormal emerged. This is based on the idea that each metaphysical system permits certain activities and events (which are “normal” when in the system) and does not permit other activities and events (which are therefore “paranormal” when you’re in it). In the everyday metaphysical system (the “Sensory Reality”), ESP is “paranormal.” In the other system (the Clairvoyant Reality”), ESP is “normal.” ESP-type events occur when an individual is relating to the world as if its metaphysical structure were that of the Clairvoyant Reality. LeShan


Book Reviews 129

sees this theory accounting for most of the data that we have in parapsychology.

LeShan chose to use “psychic healing” in a practical test of his theory of two “realities,” by learning and teaching the psychic healing ability in order to access the Clairvoyant Reality. He categorized different types of healing based on the behaviors that healers felt were related to the healing effect and used one particular type coined Type 1.

Type 1 healing is a process where the healer goes into an altered state of consciousness in which s/he experiences herself or himself and the healee as one entity. There is no attempt to “do anything” to the healee, but simply to meet her or him, to be one with, to unite with. The healer is focused by love, by caring, by caritas, on the healee: This is an essential factor, and at this moment of intense knowing, of being one with the healee, at this “ideal organismic condition,” both healer and healee exist at home in the universe in such a way that the healee’s self-repair system functions with greater effi ciency. Under these conditions, there are sometimes positive biological changes.

He chose a series of meditations and exercises that are used to facilitate the shift in consciousness to the Clairvoyant Reality. They are designed to strengthen the structure of the ego, then loosen the individual’s usual concepts of dealing with space, time, the location of the self, etc., and to make her or him emotionally aware of alternative valid ways of conceptualizing in these areas. The fi nal step is to allow students to move in a step-by-step progression until one arrives at the altered state of consciousness theoretically associated with psychic healing.

LeShan also identifi ed a Transpsychic Reality and specifi es differences across the Sensory, Clairvoyant, and Transpersonal Realities. The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist ends with a discussion on “a new note on a work in progress” and 101 pages in the appendices of parapsychological literature relevant to his thesis.

At the present time, Type 1 healing is trained and practiced in fi ve-day introductory seminars and three-day advanced seminars. Several double-blind studies have been done on Type 1 healing with promising results. These further support LeShan’s theory and belief in parapsychology’s value today as we learn more about human potential.

MICHAEL BOVA

Consciousness Research and Training Project, Inc.262 Furnace Dock Rd., Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

[email protected]

BOOK REVIEW

Controversies in Archaeology by Alice Beck Kehoe. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2008. 256 pp. $29.95. ISBN 978-1598740615.

Anthropologist/archaeologist Alice B. Kehoe not only has a solid record of empirical research and scholarly publication but is also known for her critiques of American archaeology and archaeologists (notably, Kehoe 1998, in which she does not shrink from calling spades spades). Further, certain of her interests and ideas have involved some of the most contentious topics in the fi eld. Thus, she is a “natural” as author of a book on Controversies in Archaeology. This particular volume is aimed at college-level courses but is also informative for a broader audience. It tells much more than what is or has been controversial; it gives extended glimpses of many general changes that have occurred in anthropology’s subfi eld of archaeology over the past half-century or more. Numerous case studies are provided. A major point is that differing values and presuppositions among archaeologists and others commonly lead to differing and often confl icting interpretations of the data and even to divergent opinions as to what data are looked for and at.

In her opening chapter, “The Past Is Today,” she states, “The fun part of science is fi nding unexpected data and proposing an explanation that startles people” (p. 11). Although not true for conventional scholars who stodgily confi ne themselves to mainline, non-controversial investigation, the excitement of unusual data and paradigm-shaking interpretations does provide spice for many more adventurous scholars (a few of whom, it must be acknowledged, have overreached). Such novel data and interpretations also inevitably generate argument, because they call the accepted into question.

Professor Kehoe points out that some former core ideas in the fi eld of archaeology have included concepts that have been more or less discredited in recent times. These include 1) Late Pleistocene Siberian hunters following megafaunal-game animals across the then-dry Bering Strait and subsequently moving southward into interior America via an ice-free corridor between the glaciated Rocky Mountains and the retreating Laurentide ice sheet of eastern Canada; 2) a lack of development of true pre-1492 Native American civilizations in what is now Anglo-America; 3) the risen Holocene oceans’ having caused a total isolation of the pre-Columbian New World from post-Pleistocene interaction with the Old World until (and then, insignifi cantly)


Book Reviews 131

the eleventh century A.D.; and 4) a lack of noteworthy interaction between pre-1492 North America north of Mexico and Meso- and South America.

She asserts that many even-earlier core concepts were unconsciously based on Anglo-American racism—for example, that Native Americans were incapable of constructing the impressive erections of the “Mound-builders.”

Archaeology/prehistory has highly signifi cant political and economic implications and uses.

Known pasts are used to draw tourists, often making up a substantial part of the economy. . . . Modern nations assert their inalienable right to their homeland by exhibiting archaeological fi nds from the territory, proving that people did live there for millennia. . . . [But W]ere the ancient people [really] the forbears of the present population? (p. 23)

Chapter 1 also raises knotty questions concerning who “owns the past”

in the form of artifacts. Is it the countries in which the objects originated, no matter how corrupt, unstable, or war-torn, or is it (or should it be) responsible, state-of-the-art museums in safe, relatively stable countries? Should prime treasures—the patrimony of the past—be commoditized by poor local people endeavoring to make a living through illegally (and content-destroying) unearthing and selling the leavings of their predecessors, by acquisitions on the part of art and antiquities dealers, and by sales to private and public collectors?

Other issues Kehoe raises are: the question of artifactual fakes (which are legion); the authenticity of the restorations of certain ancient monuments; and the reliability of, and even the competition between, the interpretations of the pasts involved (e.g., Native American vs. Anglo-American vs. African-American perceptions of sites’ pasts). Then, there is the problem of deterioration of sites by excessive visitation, plus the question of access afforded to sacred sites for believers and the perceived profanation of such sites by tourism development (and, one might add, by New Agers’ rituals and the like).

During recent decades, ethical issues regarding archaeological digs have engendered burgeoning discussion followed by changes in approach. Cui bono issues arise. Site excavations provide short-term paid employment for local people but also involve removal of ancestral treasures, which might be seen either as a local loss of patrimony or, instead, loss of a saleable resource; in fact, a professional dig may inspire the natives to excavate illicitly for their own economic benefi t. Local site museums, intended to keep materials in the communities where they were excavated as well as to spur tourist income, are becoming increasingly common.

132 Book Reviews

Chapter 2 is an excursion into “Scientifi c Method.” Kehoe makes the point that because scientists cannot examine all of the infi nity of data out there, they must be selective in what they look at; selection is based on what seems likely to be informative in answering questions deemed important. Therefore, theory guides investigation.

Real science, explains Kehoe, relies exclusively on empirical observation, including measurement. It attempts to describe, defi ne, and categorize with precise language and, when appropriate, to utilize visual images to communicate, providing “virtual witnessing.” One builds a “chain of signifi cation,” from naming through classifi cation to interpretation. Scientifi c archaeology strives to employ “inference to best explanation.” From observed data collected, the archaeologist induces an explanatory hypothesis, which is then tested by means of new observations in order to ascertain the consistency of the hypothesis.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Processual Archaeology enjoyed a vogue. However, its hypothetico–deductive approach did not work, because it began with an explanatory hypothesis and from that hypothesis deduced what data to seek. If the information found fi t the hypothesis, that was considered a validation. There was no testing of alternative working hypotheses.

Properly, in interpretation one applies the criterion of probability, based on frequency of occurrence of a phenomenon in other instances. The explanatory hypothesis is revisable in light of new data. “Still, improbable is not impossible. . . . Anything that is physically possible is scientifi cally possible, whatever the odds” (p. 44). One might add that there is a high probability of some improbable occurrences, that Ockham’s razor is suggestive not defi nitive.

The author discusses the process of paradigm shifts. She upholds the necessity of pre-publication peer-review of research to uphold quality but also sees the danger that conventional, conformist thinking on the part of reviewers may stifl e dissemination of innovative ideas.

In Chapter 3, “Popular Archaeology,” Dr. Kehoe tackles widely credited notions such as the landing of a saucer full of extraterrestrials near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. An archaeologist working in the area at the time remembers no unusual occurrences, she says. She may be referring to Herbert W. Dick, who denied knowledge of any landing—a denial termed false by some UFOlogists (Bragalia 2010). (Postscript: 2002 geophysical prospection and archaeological testing of supposed extraterrestrial-spacecraft landing sites on the Foster Ranch, intended to evaluate the sites’ potentials, yielded nothing startling. Of the two kinds of physical evidence reported by eyewitnesses, no clear signs of one, an unnatural furrow, were discovered—although after 55 years, geomorphic processes could have

Book Reviews 133

obliterated it. Regarding metallic debris, nothing out of the ordinary was found. An old weather balloon was discovered, but its age was estimated to be only about a decade (McAvennie 2004; analysis of a few puzzling specimens had not yet taken place at the time of this publication). For a recent book regarding credible UFO sightings, see Kean (2010). Pollard (2011) asserted that secret Cold War–era highly maneuverable unmanned aircraft built and tested in the Roswell area can account for local UFO sightings.)

Erich von Däniken comes in for negative attention as a consequence of his attributing to spacemen certain Mayan imagery as well as medicine wheels of western North America.

The problem for archaeologists is that von Däniken and his imitators appropriate actual sites and antiquities, denying credit to the peoples such as the Maya who did create them. In a sense, von Däniken stole the achieve-ments of [Palenque King] Pacal’s Maya citizens and the ancestors of the Sas-katchewan Indians who scientifi cally mapped in stone the positions of six astronomical bodies at solstice. (p. 61)

Another topic treated is the fraudulent artifacts whose putative provenience is “Burrow’s Cave” near Olney in southern Illinois (which Kehoe does not specifi cally name), alleged to be the burial site of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemys—all of which she labels “fl im-fl an” [sic] (in 1992, Russell E. Burrows and Fred Rydholm penned a book, reminiscent of the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs, about the alleged site). She also discusses the fl amboyant University of New Mexico archaeologist Frank Hibben, whose claim that he found Sandia spear points in association with extinct fauna has never been verifi ed by others.

“Pyramid power” is another target of Kehoe’s myth-exploding effort. Atlantis earns her skepticism, as well; Plato’s story of the sunken city wasn’t intended to be history, she explains, but was a parable illustrating the principle that natural disasters can overturn even the fi nest works of humans. But legends die hard; on the basis of his belief that Tiwanaku, Bolivia, was Atlantis, within the past decade Col. John Blashford-Snell of Dorset, England, built a bulrush raft and traveled down the Amazon tributaries with the ultimate intent of reaching the Atlantic and sailing on to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf (Blashford-Snell & Snailham 2002).

The “Aryan” master-race fantasy, “creation science,” and the claim of the contemporaneity of humans and dinosaurs provide additional butts.

During the 1970s, the practice of “psychic archaeology” gained a few professional adherents. Certain self-proclaimed psychic individuals purported to be able to apply extrasensory perception (ESP) to archaeological

134 Book Reviews

questions, as in reconstructing what ancient life was like at sites. Such persons employed psi, defi ned by Kehoe as “a tenuous ability to perceive more than most other people can,” acknowledging “certain persons’ unusually acute perception and recognition” (p. 67). However, psychics’

pronouncements fall outside the range of science’s ability to confi rm or de-bunk . . . . [P]sychic time travel, extraterrestrials, pyramid power, secret codes and lost cities [like Atlantis] defy reasoned eff orts to explain how much we do know about the human past. (pp. 68–69)

(Readers of the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration no doubt have a different perception of the scientifi c testability of some of these phenomena.)

All in all, observes Kehoe, many popular books and television specials falsely promote controversies in their expositions, controversies that do not really exist within the fi eld of archaeology.

“America’s First Nations” is the subject of Chapter 4. A “First Nation,” for the author, is “one of the nations fi rst in a territory, before European invasions.” (She presumably does not mean the usually unknowable very fi rst inhabitants but, rather, the historically identifi able pre-European denizens—descendants of whom may still survive.) “The most serious legitimate controversy in contemporary archaeology is the question of whose country America is” (p. 79). She describes the complex issues respecting scientifi c versus indigenous values, First Nation sovereignty, control of sites and artifacts, and competing interpretations. As an example, she cites the clash between scientists and Native Americans over disposition of the remains of the Late Pleistocene Kennewick-man skeleton unearthed in Washington State. Despite the challenges, Kehoe lauds the usefulness of archaeologists’ studying the local ethnography as well as the archaeology, and the growing collaboration between Indian nations and archaeologists (and there are now numbers of Native American archaeologists); many Indian Nations hire archaeologists for purposes of heritage-preservation.

As an example of the synthesizing of Anglo-American written history, Native American oral history, and archaeology, she cites the historical reconstruction of what took place at the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn (“Custer’s Last Stand”). Other instances of cooperation mentioned include Hopis and archaeologists cooperating to identify prehistoric Hopi sites in southeastern Arizona’s San Pedro Valley, which carries implications for artifact-repatriation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); and archaeology providing a basis for Blackfoot land claims to mountain hunting zones under the 1946 Indian Land Claims Act.

Book Reviews 135

Missing in this discussion of controversies are the many cases of overlapping land claims among the various Indian “tribes” during the land-claims cases of the latter half of the twentieth century, the most notable of which involved the confl icting claims between the Hopi and the Navajo of northeastern Arizona (see, e.g., Brugge 1994). To the different claimants and to the courts, ranks of archaeologists often offered confl icting interpretations.

Kehoe discusses the various regrettable errors and exploitations that occurred under U.S. Indian policies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She also treats archaeologists’ former blasé attitudes concerning exhumation, examination, and display of Native burials and grave goods on the often-false assumptions that traditional culture had disappeared upon the settling of the Indians on reservations and that the deculturated Natives no longer cared about their primitive, pagan forebears. The 1990 passage of NAGPRA refl ected changing perceptions and required non-Native holders of sacred and funerary objects—such as museums—to repatriate them to identifi ed Indian nations or individuals who had legitimate claims to them. The process of repatriation is an ongoing one, fraught with controversies. Some Indian Nations have accessioned the objects and human remains awarded to them, others have elected to allow museums to curate them safely and respectfully, the Indians taking them out, if at all, only periodically for ceremonies.

For the acquisition of indigenous information, mutual trust must be established between scholar and informant.

Those of us who work with First Nations take time to establish a clearly re-ciprocal relationship, fulfi lling requests from them and sharing data and records. (p. 95)

Oral history can be very useful for its potential factual content but must be approached with cautious regard for possible distortions and omissions refl ecting religious beliefs, personal or group agendas, and memory lapses.

Chapter 5 introduces us to “Finding Diversity.” Beginning in the 1960s, archaeology experienced a rising consciousness and appreciation of human diversity and individual human agency refl ected in the archaeological record, in part as a reaction to the Processualists’ sanguine belief in the discoverability of deterministic universal laws of cultural evolution. This development paralleled the emergence of “alternative lifestyles” in wider society as well as increased recognition and appreciation of, and focus on, societies’ diversity in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, abilities, wealth, roles and statuses, and so forth. Kehoe contrasts this multifaceted, subcultural, and

136 Book Reviews

individual-agency view, which she associates with wider social movements for reduced sociological and political constraints as well as tolerance for differences and for individual idiosyncrasy, with the universal-laws approach of the Processualists, to whom she attributes a fascist yearning for a tightly regulated and controlled society based on universal principles.

This general atmosphere, plus research conducted in connection with the post–World War II Indian Land Claims litigation, plus the rise of cultural-resource-management (CRM) salvage archaeology, fostered the emergence of ethnohistory, which involves the synthesis of written history, oral history, and archaeology in the service of reconstructing the pasts of formerly non-literate societies, with much more emphasis than previously on the Native point of view—and, often, under the aegis of the Indian nations themselves.

Beginning with a 1989 Chacmool conference at the University of Calgary, gender archaeology has become prominent, in which evidence for differing gender roles is explicitly searched for in the archaeological record in contrast to simply making assumptions about universal gender roles.

Another development of the past few decades regarding diversity, and one fueled particularly by class-struggle–oriented Marxist archaeologists, is interest in the archaeology of formerly often-ignored non-elite sectors of past societies, humble often marginalized sectors such as the poor, prostitutes, slaves, and the like. This shift in traditional emphasis also refl ects a shift in the fi eld from museum-supported, spectacular-object–oriented, institution-directed digs to grant-supported, academic examination of past ways of life and to CRM salvage archaeology, which looks for everything that archaeology can tell us.

Chapter 6 is “Religion and Archaeology.” There, various topics are covered:

• Archaeology has shown Stonehenge to be clearly pre-Druidic, contrary to the suppositions of neo-pagans.

• Later archaeologists, such as Cynthia Eller, have shown the suppositions of the (unsought) New Age followers of the late archaeologist Marija Gimbutas who worship the “Goddess” who supposedly reigned in pre-patriarchal Neolithic Çatal Höyük, Turkey, are based on no convincing evidence (see review by Jett 2011b).

• The term shamanism has been stretched to the breaking point. True shamans are community priests who go on drum-induced trance journeys to the land of the spirits and who are confi ned to Siberia and northern North America. Shamanism cannot be used as a global explanation for rock art, as some have endeavored to do especially during the drug-using 1960s and 1970s. Different rock art refl ects

Book Reviews 137

different purposes and refl ects different mental states, not just the ecstatic visions of religious leaders.

• The Book of Mormon is a religious but not a scientifi c source for belief.

With the rise of evolutionary theory beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, scholars have increasingly questioned aspects of the Holy Bible. As more and more fi nds by biblical archaeologists—who initially intended to unearth artifactual confi rmation of the scriptures—proved to be at odds with that book, numbers of these researchers tried to become more objective and renamed themselves Syro–Palestinian archaeologists. Kehoe mentions questions that have been raised concerning the destruction of Jericho, the numbers of people involved in the Hebrews’ Babylonian Captivity, and the existence and nature of kings Saul and Solomon. She cites evidence of a pre-Captivity association between Yahweh and the Canaanite deities Baal and Asherah, even, sometimes, with the latter goddess being seen as Yahweh’s consort.

Kehoe concludes that science and religion are not at war but are different realms: Science deals only with the natural and observable, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural and hidden. She does not say what happens when the two make confl icting assertions, such as creationism versus scientifi c evolutionism.

Chapter 7 involves “‘Diffusion’ versus Independent Invention.” Scholars have been remarkably resistant to the idea that humans could have crossed the oceans before A.D. 1492 (or A.D. 1000) and could thus have been in a position to infl uence folks on opposite shores. Kehoe terms this a confl ict between “dogmatic orthodoxy and common sense,” feeling “that the model of intermittent contacts best explains the cited features of indigenous American cultures” (p. 140).

She gives examples of good candidates for contacts. One is for Polynesians reaching the Pacifi c coast of the Americas. Evidence includes Oceanian-looking sewn-plank watercraft—the dalca in Chile and the tomol in Southern California. The name for the latter appears to be derived from the Polynesian language. And in southern Chile, late-Pre-Columbian bones of Western Polynesian chickens have been excavated. Too, the sweet potato, a South American domesticate, appears in the pre-European–contact archaeology of Polynesia and carries a South American name, kumara. (Since the appearance of Kehoe’s book, an important compendium volume on this topic has been published: Jones et al. 2011.)

Historically, people of European, particularly Northwest European, origin have felt that they were racially superior and mentally and culturally the most evolved of humans, but this view has increasingly been repudiated,

138 Book Reviews

and non-European archaeologists have been making their abilities manifest. Too, technological ascendency has characterized different societies over time; until the eighteenth century, China led the West in this realm. And in ancient times, it was northern Europeans who were relatively “backward” and who traveled to, traded with, and took goods and ideas home from, the Mediterranean civilizations.

Joseph Needham’s magisterial, multivolume Science and Civilisation in China and his other publications provide multitudinous examples of cultural diffusion within Eurasia and beyond. Needham and his collaborator Lu Gwei-djen set forth criteria for assessing the probability of diffusion explaining any particular case of distant occurrences of culture traits. The fi rst criterion was “collocation,” that is the numbers or complexities of traits or trait complexes found in the two areas; the more numerous and/or elaborate, the greater the likelihood of diffusion rather than independent development having taken place. The second criterion was geographic distance; but great, diffi cult-to-traverse distances separating occurrences can be evidentially countered by demonstrating that travel actually happened or that the means of travel—e.g., ships, camel caravan—were present. The third criterion was chronological congruences versus gaps; but time gaps in the record are not defi nitive in proving independence because they may refl ect as-yet-undiscovered evidence and/or the tradition having been carried on in perishable materials that have not survived to the present for archaeologists to fi nd. “[I]n archaeology, lack of evidence does not prove a phenomenon never existed” (p. 147).

Kehoe presents the example of the Chinese practice of block-printing texts onto paper having stimulated the fi fteenth-century German Johann Gutenberg to rework this concept and to develop printing with movable type. She observes that nomotheticists (universal-law seekers) have diffi culty in dealing with the complicated particulars of this kind of diffusion of trait complexes. Further, nomotheticists’ search for regularities in cultural evolution is confounded by the fact that, globally, different peoples have devised divergent solutions to comparable survival challenges; different histories yield different outcomes.

Sometimes, new data have required revision of diffusionist hypotheses. An example is John E. Clark’s re-examination of James Ford’s earlier conclusion that the mound-erecting, incised-potterymaking American Formative cultures, ranging from Louisiana to Peru, represented waves of diffusion as a complex that commenced some 5,000 years ago. On the basis of better dates and other considerations, Clark instead later concluded for multiple movements of various groups and traits at different times. Debated, too, is whether there even was a single Mesoamerican-civilization “mother

Book Reviews 139

culture”—the Olmec of the San Lorenzo region of Mexico’s Gulf coast (Olmán)—or whether Olmec was just one of several interacting polities of the time; whether Olmec-style ceramics found widely in Mesoamerica represent exports from Olmán or, rather, local emulation of the Olmec style (many of the extra-Olmán sherds are made with Olmán clays, a fact that favors the export claim).

Much cultural and biological evidence for early transoceanic contacts has been forwarded. Among the former, are: the bark-papermaking complex and ritual cutouts made of the paper, wheeled fi gurines, and royal-purple shellfi sh dyes (for better evidence on dyestuffs, see Jett 1998). I would add my own work on the distribution of the blowgun complex (Jett 1970, 1991) and of resist-dyeing methods (Jett 1999). Other traits include the jade complex, tiered pyramids whose levels represent the layers of heaven, Hindu-style postures and hand positions, and, especially, a complicated calendar system (Kelley’s 1981 manuscript on calendar comparisons, cited by Kehoe, is currently in press, in Pre-Columbiana). Some Asia–America indigenous cultural sharings may refl ect not pre-Columbian contacts but, rather, post-1500 transpacifi c links such as the Manila galleons that plied between Mexico and the Philippines.

Drawing upon an earlier book of hers (see review by Jett 2011a), Professor Kehoe summarizes the new evidence that the much-reviled, supposedly fraudulent, Kensington, Minnesota, Norse runestone, dated 1362, is in fact genuine.

Even more compelling than cultural commonalities is biological evidence. This is in the form of organisms—cultivated plants, intestinal parasites, and so forth—that were shared between the hemispheres in pre-Columbian times but which are very unlikely to have been able to travel across oceans or via the Arctic. An astounding compendium of such evidence assembled by anthropologist John L. Sorenson and geographer Carl L. Johannessen (2009) is the latest and greatest of the works that have appeared on this topic (Kehoe cites an earlier version). Of the plant evidence, some of the most striking is the fi nding of residues of nicotine and cocaine in Egyptian and other mummies, implying access to the American domesticates tobacco and coca (see also Jett 2003–2004).

Psychologically, scholars who grew up being instructed that Columbus was fi rst are like small children—or adults—who vehemently object when sung a variant version of a song or told a variant of a story. Kehoe writes,

Most archaeologists don’t want to think about this evidence; it makes them uncomfortable to discuss data drawn from research areas outside their own studies, and it’s hard to overturn the reigning paradigm that “primitive peo-ple” couldn’t cross water “barriers.” (p. 159)

140 Book Reviews

Although she predicts a future paradigm shift in favor of contacts and diffusion, Kehoe observes that

Not many archaeologists were experienced sailors and Western culture tends to see water travel as more dangerous than travel by land. Sailors, on the other hand, will maintain that open sea is less hazardous, though coastal waters, they do admit, are often perilous. (p. 153)

Characteristically, most archaeologists have been only vaguely aware of the capabilities of the three major non-Western traditions of watercraft—of which the author gives brief descriptions. To demonstrate the possibility of transoceanic contacts, she provides (on pp. 155–157) a table of some experimental voyages (by Thor Heyerdahl and by Tim Severin, described on pages 154, 157–158) of replica ancient watercraft as well as of numerous modern, small-boat ocean crossings, many solo and in tiny, fl imsy craft.

Kehoe grants that some diffusionists have gone overboard, as it were, with poorly supported but dramatic claims, mentioning as examples the early twentieth century anatomist/cultural historian G. Eliot Smith (who is currently undergoing intellectual reassessment; see Smith 2011 and Crook 2011) and the late-twentieth century’s avocational epigrapher Barry Fell.

Chapter 8 of the book treats “What People before Us Could Do: Earlier Technology.” In the 1960s when monuments like Stonehenge were fi rst seriously attributed astronomical-observation functions, there was wide and sometimes derisive objection; it was perceived that the ancients could not have possessed such sophistication. In the meantime, however, archaeoastronomy has become a recognized, mainstream aspect of archaeology. Kehoe expostulates on a site that she and her late husband Tom Kehoe studied, southern Saskatchewan’s Moose Mountain “medicine wheel,” which dates to the mid-fi rst millennium B.C. It exhibits fi ve sightlines to bright stars and another to the sun at solstice—perhaps to signal the moment for the annual rendezvous of the tribes.

Kehoe goes on to describe pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and Illinois, pointing out solar alignments as well as mentioning the still-debated means of lifting massive stones up the rising Egyptian edifi ces during construction, the provision of adequate drainage, and so forth.

She also touches on Old and New World earthen mounds, including giant geometric Hopewell enclosures with lunar alignments, lengthy avenues, and big burial mounds in Ohio, and notes those people living in simple structures and settlements despite the sophistication of their geometric and earthwork-building skills and their access to raw materials from as far away as Yellowstone, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Southern Appalachians.

Book Reviews 141

The author includes a box on the “mysteries” of Easter Island, which become less mysterious as one looks at them in context. The settlement of this remote speck of land was part of a Pacifi c-wide Polynesian colonization thrust, and the giant statues can be transported overland and set upright using simple mechanical means.

The sources, timing, and routes of the initial peopling of the Americas have long been among anthropology’s most contentious areas of investigation. The long-dominant notion that the fi rst arrivals were the ancestors of the creators of the Clovis spearpoints who followed big-game animals across Beringia into North America has recently been dealt a seeming deathblow by the excavation of several pre-Clovis American sites, by the recognition that the “ice-free corridor” was impassible at the time, and by the ascendency of the boat-borne, Pacifi c-coastal–migration concept. Kehoe looks at these issues and also discusses the particularly controversial hypothesis that Clovis ancestors arrived not from Siberia but from Solutrean-occupied areas in Iberia, migrating along the edge of the Late Pleistocene North Atlantic ice pack (see Jett 2012; a major book on the subject, Stanford & Bradley 2012, has appeared since Controversies was published). Kehoe fi nds the idea attractive but remains bothered by the current large chronological gap between Solutrean and Clovis.

Regarding possible pre-Clovis sites, Kehoe has reservations about the dating of the Meadowcroft site, in Pennsylvania, but accepts Wisconsin’s Chesrow complex, South Carolina’s Topper site, Virginia’s Cactus Hill, and Texas’s Gault site as manifesting occupation a millennium or so before Clovis (Texas’s pre-Clovis Buttermilk Creek Complex (Waters et al. 2011) had not yet been reported by the present book’s publication date). She seems also to accept the Monte Verde site in Chile as pre-Clovis, while noting that a number of discrepancies appear in the published report.

The book’s ninth chapter is “Neandertals, Farmers, Warriors, and Cannibals: Bringing in Biological Data.” The forebears of Neandertal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) split off from their ancestral species, Homo erectus, some 400,000 years ago (as H. heidelbergensis), with modern humans differentiating about 160,000 years ago (nearer to 200,000 years ago, according to more recent estimates, and 300,000 years ago for Neandertals). The AMH and the European and Near East’s Neandertalers have been considered to be separate species, but it is not known whether interbreeding took place and resulted in fertile offspring, leading to the eventual genetic swamping of Neandertalers by modern humans. (More recent work has identifi ed Neandertal genes in some contemporary Eurasian human populations (Gibbons 2010), which would suggest that the two lines were but subspecies.) These two species/subspecies long shared

142 Book Reviews

Middle Paleolithic technology and subsistence strategies, but Neandertalers may have lacked well-developed language as well as art (Kehoe feels that Neandertalers’ burial of their dead bespeaks abstract thought and language, and some archaeologists do attribute art to Neandertalers (Balter 2012)); also debated is whether more-sophisticated Upper Paleolithic technology was exclusively the product of modern humans or whether some Neandertalers also learned it, from Homo sapiens. Kehoe seems to favor technological distinctiveness, at least with the inception of H. sapiens’s Aurignacian toolkit.

Another topic that has been argued is whether the spread of farming across Europe was a matter of group-to-group transfer, involving little migration (contagious diffusion), or whether Near Easterners carried the technology of food production with them while physically moving into and across the continent (demic diffusion), also carrying Indo-European speech with them. (Genetics now indicates that demic diffusion was, indeed, involved, predominantly by males, who often married local women (Haak et al. 2010).)

Farmers, Kehoe contends, had continuously to acquire and develop more farmland, because rapid population growth and the need to support non-farming occupational specialists required it. However, during Neolithic times, cultivators lacked armies to accomplish this. Further, Indo-European languages share little in the way of horticultural vocabulary, and other words that are held in common indicate an origin for the family in the steppes to the north of the Black Sea (for a competing, Anatolian-origin Indo-European theory, see Renfrew 1987). She concludes that farming, conquest, and language-spread were not fully congruent here, and that attributing major language spread simply to the spread of farming (à la Peter Bellwood 2004) is ill-founded. Expansion by force, she concludes, despite a lack of armies, is a stronger explanation.

Attributing warfare to peoples such as Marija Gimbutas’s allegedly pacifi c, goddess-oriented, Neolithic, Middle Easterners or to the ancestral Hopi—“the peaceful people”—of Arizona by authors such as Lawrence H. Keeley has generated much resistance. This was particularly the case when Christy Turner gave evidence that the Hopi had even occasionally practiced cannibalism.

Although acknowledging that commonly evoked simple explanations for warfare, such as scarcity engendered by climate change or by population growth, are probably sometimes correct, Kehoe cautions that these are not necessary conditions.

She forwards the case of the large Cahokia mound complex in southern Illinois, where excavation of a small mound revealed 266 seemingly

Book Reviews 143

sacrifi cial bodies and rich grave goods; the victims—war captives?—were from distant areas. Kehoe sees Cahokia resemblances to historical Osage practice and even to aspects of southern Mexico’s Mixtec culture. She also comments on Chaco Canyon, New Mexico’s, connections with the south, involving exchange of turquoise for macaws, ceremonial knowledge, etc., tentatively identifying Cahokia’s and Chaco’s trading partner as Central Mexico’s late-pre-Columbian Toltec culture. Cahokia may have exported foodstuffs, deer hides, and slaves.

Alice Kehoe’s fi nal chapter, 10, is on “Competing Theories of Cultural Development.” Over time, the general question of the processes of cultural elaboration has probably been the most controversial one in the fi eld, producing dramatically opposed answers. In fact, as in the case of a number of other disciplines, archaeology has been plagued in contemporary times by extreme internecine confl ict, disdain for dissenting colleagues, and other forms of divisiveness.

She speaks of the nineteenth-century idea of cultures being superorganisms, entities greater than the sum of their members, with intrinsic tendencies toward inception, fl orescence, decline, and extinction, observing that this concept is no longer taken literally but only as a metaphor. (Certainly, individuals are in considerable degree conditioned by the cultures/societies into which they were born and in which they exist, which are in that sense superorganic.)

The rise of the Darwinian concept of organic natural selection inspired the notion of cultural evolution, a vision that, although waxing and waning and transmogrifying over the years, remains a strong tradition today.

Kehoe points out that it is an error to assume, as many do, that “evolution” necessarily equates with “progress.” And she writes of the widely accepted “racist” cultural evolutionary theories of the pioneering nineteenth-century American avocational anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (“savagery,” “barbarism,” and “civilization”), which ultimately fell into disrepute, particularly owing to the meticulous and broad-minded empirical and interpretative work of the German-American Columbia University anthropologist Franz Boas. She also mentions the impact of Karl

144 Book Reviews

Marx’s materialist thinking on the infl uential earlier–twentieth-century Australo–British archaeologist V. Gordon Childe.

The socialist University of Michigan anthropologist Leslie White and his colleague Elman Service rejected Boas’s historical particularism and revised Morgan’s old ideas to produce the concept of unilinear cultural evolution, which, in turn, set the stage for the 1960s rise of the “New,” or Processual, Archaeology. The latter drew upon the environmental sciences—something that was very productive but which, at the same time, led to excessive ecological determinism. Practitioners also tried to be scientifi c by applying the hypothetico–deductive method, but this proved to be an inappropriate approach to the study of the pasts of cultures. “Their commitment to natural history rather than cultural histories persuaded them that human societies must follow evolutionary pathways” (p. 225), when in fact societies tend to diverge culturally according to the particular infl uences to which they are subjected.

The New archaeologists ignored Julian Steward’s 1950 idea of multilineal evolution, a concept more in accord with (largely divergent) biological evolution. Steward felt that different environment types were fundamental in conditioning the basic lifeways of peoples and the sociopolitical natures of their societies but that secondary accretions could come from emulation of practices of other societies and also from internal innovation; Kehoe stresses that humans have always been inveterate travelers and that intersocietal exchanges have always been important for cultural evolution.

Although Processual concepts have been recently repackaged as “evolutionary archaeology,” reaction against Processualism was one source of “Post-Processualism,” in which the extreme relativism of philosophical Postmodernism included the ideology that reality is subjective, that “science” is impossible, and that all points of view are equally valid—a stance antithetical to any objective, fact-based, best-explanation interpretation.

These theoretical approaches relate to the question of how most human lifeways developed from those relatively simple, sparse-population ones based on the collecting of wild foods to those depending on agriculture and producing populous and elaborate societies and sophisticated technologies. Julian Steward followed a Marx-infl uenced historian (Karl Wittfogel; not named by Kehoe) who hypothesized that the rise of “hydraulic civilizations” required despotism to manage their critical irrigation systems. However, later empirical investigation of the facts and chronologies showed that this scheme didn’t hold up. Subsequent Processual Archaeology tended to perceive the pressure of population growth as the engine for the development of farming, whose expansion, in turn, required an overall coordinating authority and

Book Reviews 145

led to state-formation, which involved specialized occupations, including in religion and in military affairs.

No state, the Processualists contended, could arise in the absence of abundant resources, most fundamentally plenty of good farmland. But these notions fail to account for empires established by non-farming Asian pastoralists or for rich farming areas that did not give rise to states. “Ecological determinism fell short as a universal explanation” (p. 230).

Further, the gradually-increasing-complexity model of band > tribe > chiefdom > state, with advancing hierarchies, has been challenged. Mesopotamia’s development of writing, standardization, laws, admin-istrative structures, and the like seems to have been in the service of simplifi cation of increasingly unwieldy ramifying but poorly coordinated activities, and it took place over a period of only a few centuries, circa 3500 B.C. Further, along the Niger River in Mali, loose settlement and economic heterarchy rather than hierarchy seem to have predominated, manifested as village clusters rather than as nucleated cities, each village with its own production specialty but sharing power within the cluster and the whole operating as an economic and political system in a fashion similar to the functioning of a city.

Kehoe’s fi nal paragraph includes the following observation: “Contro-versies will continue, but there seems to be a heartening reaffi rmation of the importance of empirical data. There was a real past out there,” which we are endeavoring to understand as actualities and not to just theorize about (p. 235).

One could cavil concerning a handful of her factual statements, but Dr. Kehoe is remarkably knowledgeable and very largely quite accurate in this book. Her prose is aimed at undergraduates and will seem somewhat casual and inelegant to the more mature reader. But the work contains a great deal to ponder, on a great variety of intriguing, debated topics.

Stephen C. Jett

[email protected]

References

Balter, M. (2012). Neandertal champion defends the reputation of our closest cousins. Science, 337(6095), 642–643.

Bellwood, P. (2004). The First Farmers: Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Blashford-Snell, J., & Snailham, R. (2002). East to the Amazon: In Search of the Great Paititi and the

Trade Routes of the Ancients. London: John Murray.Bragalia, A. (2010). The “Other” Roswell Crash: The Secret of the Plains Revealed [of San Augustin,

NM]. The UFO Iconoclast(s). http//ufocon.blogspot.com/2010/05/other-roswell-crash-secret-of-plains-by.html

146 Book Reviews

Brugge, D. M. (1994). The Navajo–Hopi Land Dispute: An American Tragedy. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Burrows, R., & Rydholm, F. (1992). The Mystery Cave of Many Faces: A History ofBurrow’s Cave. Marquette, MI: Superior Heartland.

Crook, P. (2011). Grafton Elliot Smith, Egyptology and the Diff usion of Culture: A Biographical Perspective. Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press.

Gibbons, A. (2010). Close encounters of the prehistoric kind. Science, 328(5979), 680–684.Haak, W., et al. (2010). Ancient DNA from European early Neolithic farmers reveals their Near

Eastern affi nities. PLoS Biology, 8(11), e1000536. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536Jett, S. C. (1970). The development and distribution of the blowgun. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 60(4), 662–688. Jett. S. C. (1991). Further information on the geography of the blowgun and its implications

for early transoceanic contacts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(1), 89–102.

Jett, S. C. (1998). Dyestuff s and Possible Early Southwestern Asian/South American Contacts. In Across before Columbus? Evidence for Transoceanic Contact with the Americas prior to 1492 edited by Donald Gilmore and Linda McElroy, Edgecomb, ME: New England Antiquities Research Association NEARA Publications, pp. 141–149.

Jett, S. C. (1999). Resist-dyeing: A possible ancient transoceanic transfer. NEARA Journal, 33(1), 41–55. New England Antiquities Research Association.

Jett, S. C. (2003–2004). More on nicotine and cocaine in Egyptian mummies: A précis of recent articles. Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 3(1–3), 45–49.

Jett, S. C. (2011a). Review of The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically by Alice Beck Kehoe. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 25(4), 891–893.

Jett, S. C. (2011b). Review of The Goddess and the Bull—Çatalhöyük: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization by Michael Balter. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 25(1), 186–89.

Jett, S. C. (2012). Review of four articles on the “Iberia, not Siberia” hypothesis. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 26(4), 936–938 .

Jones, T. L., Storey, A. A., Matisoo-Smith, E. A., & Ramírez-Aliaga, J. M. (Editors) (2011). Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Kean, L. (2010). UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Offi cials Go on the Record. New York: Crown Books.

Kehoe, A. B. (1998). The Land of Prehistory: A Critical History of American Archaeology. New York: Routledge.

Kelley, D. H. (2011–2014). Asian components in the invention of the Mayan calendar. Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 5(2–4). [In press]

McAvennie, M. (Editor) (2004). The Roswell Dig Diaries. On Sci-Fi Declassifi ed. New York: Pocket Books.

Pollard, F. G. (2011). No debate needed on the extraterrestrial explanation [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 25(3), 553.

Renfrew, C. (1987). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Pimlico Books.

Smith, J. D. (2011). Egypt and the Origin of Civilization: The British School of Culture Diff usion. Vindication Press.

Sorenson, J. L., & Johannessen, C. L. (2009). World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492. New York/Bloomington: iUniverse.

Stanford, D. J., & Bradley, B. A. (2012). Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waters, M. R., et al. (2011). The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science, 331(6024), 1599–1603.

147

BOOK REVIEW

The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the

Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin. University of Chicago Press, 2012. 291 pp. $29 (hardcover). ISBN 978-0226304427.

Everyone interested in pseudoscience, fringe science, anomalistics, is likely to benefi t from the material in this work. The book has much to say about the social and political context in which heterodox claims about matters of science have fl ourished and been argued over since the middle of the 20th century. Creationism and Lysenkoism as well as Velikovsky are discussed quite comprehensively and informatively. Attempts within unorthodoxies to maintain a monolithic paradigm are illustrated and analyzed to good purpose.

The Pseudoscience Wars uses the Velikovsky episode as entrée to examine how scientists and society behave when drastically unorthodox claims about matters of science are ventured by non-scientists; the Velikovsky affair “was about science in the postwar public sphere” (p. 22); “an abiding anxiety about science’s relation to the ‘public’” (p. 47) was central in the reaction of the scientifi c community.

Much of the material is drawn from the Velikovsky Archives and some of it is likely to be new to most readers; in other ways as well the book illustrates the wide-ranging familiarity with pertinent literature that historians somehow manage to command, enabling them to recapture comprehensively the ambience of past eras.

I should disclose that I published a book about the Velikovsky Affair nearly 30 years ago, and that I’m cited at many places in this book; but on those matters Gordin does not quarrel with what I wrote nor do I quarrel with his takes on those issues—my book was concerned with how scientists ought to have addressed Velikovsky’s substantive propositions, whereas Gordin explicitly disavows concern with the correctness or otherwise of Velikovsky’s claims. His “goal is historical: to chronicle what happened, to explain when possible why, and to reveal the passions excited by calling something ‘science’ across this temporal period” (p. 18). This approach, agnostic about the substantive claims, is at once a strength but also a weakness. The strength lies in the elucidation of the infl uence of social context, which is too often ignored by unorthodox thinkers and their critics, who all imagine their task to be purely intellectual, focusing on the


148 Book Reviews

substantive claims. The weakness lies in the fact that how society reacts to unorthodox claims ought surely to vary according to the plausibility or legitimacy of those claims, so ignoring that aspect could distort some conclusions. But no book can do everything, and Gordin has done a major service by addressing important factors that have not before been discussed adequately.

The book begins with the unequivocal assertion that pseudoscience is an empty concept since there exist no viable demarcation criteria by which science can be distinguished from non-science, be it called pseudoscience or something else. Indeed, the very defi nition of pseudoscience as something that “resembles or mimics” science, “has the trappings but not the essence of science” (p. 202) means that there could not be a defi nitive way of distinguishing science from its Doppelgänger, pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is just a pejorative term employed when scientists or their groupies feel the enterprise of science to be threatened. There is no commonality among all the matters that have at various times been labeled pseudoscience, other than that they have been abhorrent to some number of scientists or their fans or some part of the scientifi c establishment. Gordin is also spot on in pointing out Martin Gardner’s role in turning “discussions of alleged pseudoscience into debunking crusades” (p. 12).

Immediately one might ask why scientists should ever feel threatened by claims from outsiders, given that science and scientists enjoy high social prestige and that their opinions are granted almost universal deference. Here Gordin provides welcome insights based on the social environment in which Velikovsky caused such a brouhaha in 1950 with the publication of Worlds in Collision—claiming that literary sources reveal that Venus was once a comet that induced such cataclysmic events on Earth as the parting of the Red Sea and the falling of the walls of Jericho. Among the important contextual factors were:

Science had only recently attained its current high status, perhaps chiefl y as a result of the World-War-II–ending, atom-bomb development as well as the work on radar, penicillin, and other technological feats that brought much of science out of its traditional ivory tower. (Critical aspects of this fundamental change in scientifi c activity are summarized in Ziman (1994).)Anxiety over keeping the recently gained high status and the generous

funding for science that accompanied it was exacerbated by political circumstances: rabid anti-Communism by the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joe McCarthy had harassed quite a few prominent scientists.

Book Reviews 149

Under those circumstances, some scientists over-reacted: threatening the publisher of Worlds in Collision, castigating the book while proclaiming they had not read it. The fuss gave Velikovsky much greater publicity than if the book had just been ignored by offi cial science.

In the 1960s and 1970s, some social scientists and some student groups seized on Velikovsky’s work as a tool to promote postmodernist, relativist attitudes and anti-Establishment activities. Velikovsky himself never set out to battle with science, he wanted acceptance, and was drawn rather unwillingly into acting as an anti-Establishment guru; however, Gordin suggests,

Velikovsky served as a middle ground for people of all political persuasions. He was an underdog in an age that had ceased to trust scientists (captur-ing the Left), but he also promoted deeper study of the Bible (seducing the Right) in a decade whose best-selling work was Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth (1970), an application of biblical eschatology to Cold War geo-politics. (p. 169)

Disparate others also sought to benefi t from Velikovsky’s coat-tails: a conscientious objector on non-religious grounds (pp. 174–175), a Native American activist (pp. 175–176).

Given the appeal of science fi ction to contemporary youth, what did authors of science fi ction think of Velikovsky? “Among the most persistent and hostile critics . . . were the luminaries of science fi ction” (p. 170). Gordin seems to fi nd this rather surprising, but I do not: Authors of science fi ction such as Asimov or Crichton tend to be very knowledgeable about science and good friends of honest science.

A novel and illuminating feature of this book is the comparing of the Velikovsky matter with several other topics, Lysenkoism and scientifi c creationism in particular. At roughly the same time as Worlds in Collision was published, Western scientists had been surprised and disturbed that political machinations and control had led to biology in the Soviet Union being taken over by a pseudoscientifi c doctrine, Lysenkoism, which rejected genetic theory and claimed to be able to modify heredity directly and deliberately. Gordin doesn’t mention it, but in the same era Soviet ideologists had also declared the “idealistic” theories of chemical bonding and quantum mechanics incompatible with Marxist materialist principles, so chemists and physicists as well as biologists were aghast at what damage could result when outsiders were enabled to interfere with science. Thus when Velikovsky came along at the same time as American politicians were harassing supposed Communists in the scientifi c community, some scientists became perhaps overly concerned that the public might take him seriously.

150 Book Reviews

Gordin’s recounting of the Lysenko affair and its impact on American scientists is well worth reading just for its own sake. Not only had World War II brought scientists unprecedented status, it had stimulated them to seek to infl uence public policy. One outcome was a journal, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which had articles about the Lysenko affair as well as such matters closer to home as atomic bombs and nuclear power stations. The geneticist Dobzhansky clearly recognized that the importance science had assumed “in the lives of individuals and of nations” meant that science would “need popular support and will have to submit to social control” (p. 96). So even a populist like Velikovsky could be seen as a threat to science if he managed to achieve public credibility.

Chapter 4 of The Pseudoscience Wars discusses the history of eugenics as showing that something once labeled pseudoscience can rehabilitate itself, segueing into Velikovsky’s attempts at legitimation by cultivating interactions with well-established scientists, Einstein in particular. Like all dissenters from mainstream doctrines, “Velikovsky found himself torn between becoming popularized and becoming vulgarized” (p. 162). Charismatic individuals like Velikovsky appeal to people who have a genuine interest in matters scientifi c and who long for understandable science by contrast to the impenetrable abstractions and jargon that permeate modern research; but popularizing morphs easily into, or leads to, unbridled superfi cial speculation.

Chapter 5 has much of importance for and about people maligned as pseudoscientists, using as a prime example scientifi c creationism, which also connects substantively to the Velikovsky story at a number of points. The attempt to promulgate alternatives to mainstream science is always fraught with the diffi culty of maintaining a common front. Freud’s problems with his disciples are well-known. Ufology and parapsychology and cryptozoology have all experienced infi ghting and schisms. Velikovsky was frequently unhappy with efforts made by people who thought they were supporting his views even as they differed in some respects and in ways that were not congenial to him. Scientifi c creationism, the brainchild of Henry Morris, experienced similar episodes of self-styled supporters unwelcome to Morris. Creationism and Velikovsky could not avoid all contact because both found support for their views in heterodox interpretations of geology and fossils—albeit their interpretations were totally distinct; Velikovsky was often at pains to distance himself from religious fundamentalism, and Morris tried to hide that some of his citations were the same as Velikovsky’s (e.g., p. 145): “If Velikovsky was too ‘pseudo’ for Morris, creationism was the same for Velikovsky” (p. 153). Velikovsky was also anxious to distance himself from Erich von Däniken (pp. 176–178).

Book Reviews 151

The perpetual threat of schisms is illustrated by the case of Donald Patten (p. 146 ff.) whose idiosyncratic chronology and creationist theory offended both Velikovsky and Morris. Velikovsky was also unhappy with attempts to link his work to that of Wilhelm Reich (p. 158 ff.). In wanting to suppress dissent, Gordin points out, Velikovsky and his ilk can resort to the same tactics that the mainstream deploys against them; thus Velikovsky himself pronounced Patten’s book as worthless while acknowledging that he had not read it himself (p. 153).

Gordin’s emphasis on social context is also illuminating in pointing to the temporal proximity of on the one hand federal involvement in training scientists as part of the Cold War and on the other hand the drive by creationists to infl uence science curricula (p. 144). That continuing drive, now under the guise of “intelligent design,” will have stimulated the scientifi c community to be perhaps overly sensitive to any incipient pseudoscience or pseudoscientist.

I recommend this book unreservedly, while noting here a few points on which more deserves to be said. To begin with a perhaps trivial quibble: Jacques Barzun, who happens to be a great hero of mine, did not make a “positive comment” (p. 155) about Velikovsky’s work, he merely decried the ad hominem tactics directed at the man.

I think the book has a few non-trivial fl aws. The “war” metaphor seems forced in places and didn’t really help to illuminate anything for me. There seems an inconsistency between acknowledging pseudoscience to be an empty concept and referring to the pseudoscience wars (e.g., p. 158) or even a “coherent confl ict of the pseudoscience wars” (p. 4), when there is really no commonality let alone coherence to be found in the controversies over the multitude of things that have been prominently called pseudoscience since the middle of the 20th century: UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, parapsychology, cold fusion, Chariots of the Gods, Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, etc. Though the Velikovsky business does afford a useful entrée into considering reactions to such claims, it hardly foreshadowed or set the stage for those other things, as Gordin seems to suggest in some places; I found no evidence to support the view that “Velikovsky’s lived presence—even if only on the printed page—had always been crucial to the waging of the pseudoscience

152 Book Reviews

wars” (p. 195). Martin Gardner’s classic enumeration in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science claims no coherence among all the mentioned topics, nor does it recognize any primacy for Velikovsky. I think any coherence among all those disparate topics arises not from anything inherent in them but from the fact that they all played out within the contextual factors that Gordin describes so convincingly.

Gordin suggests that the Velikovsky Affair might have proceeded differently had contemporary historians focused on Velikovsky’s chrono-logical unorthodoxies instead of treating it as a scientifi c dispute (p. 74); but the historians who fi rst commented were historians of science, no doubt because scientists had jumped into the fray fi rst. I’m also hesitant to accept that “one of the chief activities of the mainstream scientifi c community is the process of demarcation itself” (p. 202); if so, I would opine that this is a relatively recent development as a corollary of science moving into the halls of political power.

I wish fervently that Gordin had eschewed, in the last chapter, “Pseudoscience in Our Time,” the suggestion that threats to science nowadays come not from outsiders but from those members of the scientifi c community who question the mainstream consensus and who have been declared, by the offi cial mainstream, to be “denialists” (p. 206). He is right to the extent that they are perceived as a threat, but his quotations indicate that he accepts that the denialists are not only substantively wrong but wrong even for wrong reasons. For a deconstruction of the use of the term denialist, see Furedi (2007). As a denialist myself, I dispute that we “have a common discourse, are funded by a specifi c set of industries, and are affi liated with particular think tanks with a common (strongly conservative) political ideology” (p. 207). On this—unlike in his comprehensive coverage of the pertinent literature in the rest of the book—Gordin cites just a few partisan sources (including the journalistic rant from Mooney (2005) and the shoddy book by Specter (2009)). We HIV/AIDS denialists exist in schismatic sects, are not funded by anyone, and represent the range of political persuasions from very Green to quite conservative–reactionary, including libertarians of several stripes (I relished sitting between two self-styled libertarians who had diametrically opposite views about Obamacare). Moreover, on issues where “denialism” is shouted, even more than regarding what is labeled pseudoscience, the validity of the evidence for and against the mainstream consensus cannot be ignored, it’s the central point. As I’ve shown elsewhere, if the evidence is respected one must conclude that it is far from settled science that HIV causes AIDS (Bauer 2007) or that human activities have appreciably added to global warming (Bauer 2012).

I hope these caveats will be seen as information for readers of the

Book Reviews 153

book, not as detracting in any way from the book’s value. After all, it is a high compliment that a book invites and warrants discussion. Gordin’s treatment of many important matters is thoroughly scholarly and highly informative, especially as to social context which has typically been given too short shrift in discourse about pseudoscience. That Gordin may not have everything right is hardly a serious criticism, especially since he gets so much so insightfully right.

HENRY H. BAUER

Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

[email protected], www.henryhbauer.homestead.com

References

Bauer, H. H. (2007). The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory. McFarland.Bauer, H. H. (2012). Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize

Research and Stifl e the Search for Truth. McFarland.Furedi, F. (2007). Denial: There Is a Secular Inquisition That Stigmatises Free Thinking.

spiked-online.com, http://j.mp/bH1rypMooney, C. (2005). The Republican War on Science. Basic Books.Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientifi c Progress, Harms the Planet,

and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin. [See my 2010 review in Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, 24(4), 693–700.]

Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge University Press.

BOOK REVIEW

The Lonely Sense: The Autobiography of a Psychic Detective by Robert Cracknell and Colin Wilson. Anomalist Books, 2011. 330 pp. $16.95. ISBN 978-1933665511.

Robert Cracknell is a British psychic who won fame in the 1970s and 1980s as a psychic detective. The Lonely Sense is a record of his life, originally published as Clues to the Unknown in 1981, here expanded and updated. The book makes interesting reading. Cracknell comes across, as author Colin Wilson accurately remarks in a Foreword, as “totally down-to-earth, blunt, aggressive, and impatient,” also “intelligent, honest, and obsessively, almost self-destructively, devoted to his own vision of the truth.”

The fi rst chapters describe a diffi cult working-class childhood, fi rst as a foster child suffering deprivation and then being brought up by his mother and stepfather, and then service in the British Royal Air Force. Early experiences of isolation, hunger, and occasional brutality turn him into a loner, but he also discovers within himself an unexpectedly deep sensitivity toward others, to which he attributes the fi rst stirrings of his psychic awareness. There follows a failed marriage and a stint as a student nurse in a psychiatric hospital.

This is not the story of seeing dead people, commonly described by spirit mediums—there are rather fewer such incidents than one usually fi nds in such books—but rather of developing and learning to trust his inner intuitions. In fact, after an initial period training as a medium Cracknell develops a marked antipathy to spiritualism, with its focus on afterlife and spirit guides. He is adamant that anyone and everyone is psychic to some degree, and is scornful of the mystique surrounding mediumship—a theme he returns to throughout the book.

There are several exhibitions of his psychic ability. In one striking episode he agrees to try to identify a person who will be sitting in a particular chair at a meeting that will take place several weeks in the future, the venue yet to be decided. He tries to visualize the meeting and tapes himself describing his impressions, then hands the tape to the organizers, who keep it in a safe until the meeting, at which time he stands on the stage as the tape is played. Cracknell feels anxious that he has bitten off more than he can chew, and minutes before the meeting he is convinced that he has failed, as the person sitting in the target chair does not at all match his taped description. But


Book Reviews 155

by the time the event begins, more rows of chairs have been added, changing the target chair, which now to his relief is occupied by the person he visualized. As the tape plays, various other predictions about audience members and their circumstances are all triumphantly vindicated.

Cracknell is reluctant to profi t directly from his gift, but eventually fi nds a use for it in his job as a fi nancial fraud buster, fi rst as an employee of an agency and then running his own business. Later chapters describe how he also uses it to help solve high-profi le police cases, which brings him to the attention of the national media. One of the most striking cases takes place in Italy, when Cracknell is persuaded by the father of a kidnapped girl to go out to his Lake Como residence to help the police search for her. He starts with the conviction that it will end with the girl’s safe return, and eventually declares that it will be next Friday, fi ve days away, giving time for the girl’s somewhat venal father to sell the story of her homecoming as an exclusive to a British Sunday tabloid. The girl is duly recovered on the Friday, although apparently without any direct help from Cracknell himself.

There’s a curious encounter with Uri Geller in New York, where he is disillusioned to fi nd his fellow-psychic more interested in fame and money than in using his gifts for people’s benefi t, for instance in healing. In a street meeting in front of news photographers, Geller does his key-bending trick, which he fi nds impressive. Cracknell suggests they try a joint public event, he in the UK repeating his chair trick for a future event to be held in New York while Geller in the U.S. attempts to interfere with a computer in London. Geller seems keen. But after the media has been hooked on the idea, he suddenly pulls out without any explanation.

First-person accounts by psychics are always suspect to a degree, in the sense that the reader has no way of determining how accurate the descriptions of successful cases actually are, and what details may have been tweaked or massaged—whether consciously or unconsciously—to make the outcome look more impressive than actually was the case. Self-proclaimed psychic detectives are a particular target for skeptics. In this instance, readers who acknowledge the genuineness of psychic functioning, either from experience or from responsible research, may be willing to acknowledge that Cracknell is a psychic of uncommon ability. It’s true

156 Book Reviews

that his descriptions show the ambiguities and complexities involved in detection work, for instance having to persuade skeptical policemen to follow up apparently nonsensical hunches and often coming up with predictions that prove to be accurate but that however do not necessarily contribute directly to a resolution. However, in these and other ways the book provides valuable insights into a psychic’s inner development and the realities of life in the public eye.

Robert [email protected]

157


BOOK REVIEW

Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite: The Science of Monsters by Matt Kaplan. New York: Scribner, 2012. 244 pp. $26.00 (hardcover). ISBN 978-1451667981.

The Dark Ages lie deep in the past, the isolated folk community has grown almost as rare as the unicorn. Nevertheless it is amid this modern age of technology and enlightenment that we live in the golden age of monsters. They no longer crouch under the bed at night but leap out from the big screen in 3-D. Turn on the TV, pick up a popular novel, and you risk attack by vampires, zombies, dinosaurs, or aliens—while abundant videogames offer an opportunity to fi ght back. Monsters have stayed with us throughout human history but their persistent and insistent intrusion in modern times poses a phenomenon in need of scholarly attention, and such attention is now very much at hand. A subject that was once beneath academic dignity as mere fashion in lowbrow entertainment or superstitious survivals from the childhood of the species has risen to prominence across multiple disciplines. The grounds of that interest underlie not so much the monsters themselves as a realization that if monsters saturate modern culture, that fact tells us something about ourselves; and even if we no longer need to hunt the primeval forest for our quarry or venture beyond where the map leaves off, understanding the monstrous is no less important, and perhaps all the greater because the source lurks so close to home.

Why do we love our monsters so? Why do we even have monsters, of all things? Don’t we know better? The issues inspired by the universal presence of big, ugly, dangerous, and disturbing creatures breaking into the order of the everyday world have given rise to an impressive scholarly literature. Anthropologists inventory the prolifi c array of monsters recognized by peoples around the world, and consider the social functions these creatures serve. Folklorists and psychologists have pondered the monster as a personifi cation of otherness, an expression of deep-seated fears, or a response to the uncertainties of modern life. Literary scholars long preoccupied with the role of the hero are now giving his adversary its due, while books, articles, and conferences devoted to cinematic treatments of vampires and TV series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer have mined the rich representation of these creatures as romantic anti-heroes and outsiders at once alluring and terrifying. Zombies derive their popularity as versatile

158 Book Reviews

metaphors for a consumer society wherein everyone performs only mindless routines, while all too many of us join the ranks of the cell-phone variety to stumble around in semi-conscious oblivion. For scholars of religion the monster of ancient as well as modern texts exemplifi es the forces of chaos ever biding, always threatening the divine order. Postmodernists look ahead to see our monsters portrayed more and more as human inventions. For example, the monster movies of the patriotic 1950s cast scientists and the military as heroes saving the world from aliens and creatures from the deep, while the countercultural 1960s began a turnaround that transformed the former heroes into the villains creating robots, hybrids, and viruses that threatened the world.

How monsters originate has also been the subject of extensive scholarship. Psychoanalytic theory with its attention to dreams and psychic confl icts traces monstrous imagery to fantasy processes. Folklorist David Hufford, in his seminal book The Terror That Comes in the Night (1982), proposed an experience-centered approach to understanding bedroom attacks by malevolent, suffocating creatures, the original bearers of the term “nightmare.” He concluded that this universal phenomenon could be explained in part by the physiological process of sleep paralysis and thus, contrary to standard academic wisdom, some seemingly supernatural encounters were not imaginary but in fact had an experiential basis. A growing literature honors the legitimacy of experience in making monsters, among them Paul Barber in Vampires, Burial, and Death (1988), who argues that the physical phenomena of death and decay provided the imagery for vampire accounts; and Adrienne Mayor in The First Fossil Hunters (2000), who attributes the origin of many monsters to the discovery of fossil skeletons by ancient peoples. Some of the most complex and compelling theory on the origin of monsters comes from cognitive psychology, which takes into account the evolutionary history of the human species and certain predispositions that became hard-wired into human thought through processes of natural selection. As prey for giant predators and often in competition with members of their own kind, early humans and proto-humans underwent a long mental process that shaped certain responses still with us today, such as fear of the dark, fear of snakes, and xenophobia. In theory, many aspects of social behavior, religion, imagination—and its monsters—have this evolutionary basis.

A new addition to the literature of monsters is Matt Kaplan’s Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite. Kaplan, a science journalist published in many leading magazines, subtitles his book “The Science of Monsters,” a phrase that keynotes an attempt to fi nd rational origins for the monsters of myth, legend, and storytelling past and present, and to draw out some

Book Reviews 159

understanding of why they fascinate us. He defi nes monsters in a broad, informal sense as creatures that are horrible to behold and threatening in some way, though even these basic characteristics turn inside out as he explores the evolution of the monstrous and sees, for example, the vampire transform into screen heartthrob or the giant ape King Kong become sympathetic and his exploiters the villains. An important sub-theme of the book is that human fears have changed over time as human circumstances have changed, yet our monsters have evolved in parallel to stay with us, adapting as our fears change and renewing themselves as relevant embodiments of those fears.

Kaplan’s plan is to showcase a certain type of monster in each chapter, provide notable examples, consider possible natural sources, and follow up with appearances of the type in such modern contexts as the movies. He starts with creatures made monstrous by unusual size and ferocity. Examples include the Nemean Lion and Calydonian Boar from Greek mythology, the Rukh (or Rok) from Persian folktales, and the modern King Kong. Another step upward in complexity arrives at the monster of mingled parts. The Chimera has the head of a lion and tail of a snake with a goat’s body in between, the Sphinx has the head of a human and the body of a lion. What makes these creatures monstrous is their disturbing, unnatural mixture of parts, an unsettling property exploited by H. G. Wells in The Island of Dr. Moreau as the scientist surgically transformed animals into semi-humans. Some monsters like the Minotaur and Medusa abide beneath the earth, or like Leviathan and the shark in Jaws belong to the depths of the sea. The dragon deserves a chapter of its own as one of the most widespread and versatile monsters. It draws on the inherent fearfulness of the serpent and adds the ability to fl y as well as the fabulous quality of breathing fi re. As the form of the elder gods dragons threaten to destroy the world, as subterranean guardians of treasure they imperil heroes from Beowulf to Harry Potter, yet in China they trade off much of their terror to appear as godlike agents of benevolence, fertility, and good fortune.

Another class of monster belongs to the realm of the supernatural. Some are disembodied spirits like ghosts and the demons that can assume

160 Book Reviews

physical form to attack people in their sleep, often to rob them of sexual or life energies. Others prey on the living, among them humans that transform into ravenous werewolves, the undead vampires that suck human blood for sustenance, and zombies that are animated corpses with an appetite for human fl esh. In these cases the monsters are predatory, malevolent, merciless, possessed of superhuman powers, often cunning and intrusive in their attacks so that the usual places of safety like home or bedroom are vulnerable—all in all a potent combination for evoking terror. A third class of monster originates in human creation. The Golem, Frankenstein’s monster, and robots begin with good intentions but eventually, inevitably, run amok. The same can be said of the dinosaurs resurrected by science for Jurassic Park. These monsters tell a straightforward morality tale of human hubris usurping a power that belongs to God alone, and the punishment that always ensues. Kaplan closes with aliens as the modern restoration of endless opportunity for monstrousness, since in the vastness of space there is no danger of running out of room on the map and all fears become possible once again.

So where do these striking creations of the human imagination originate? They provoke fear by being horrible to look at, terrifying in their behaviors, or dangerous by placing us in the position of prey or victims. Fear itself holds an appeal for humans. Whether the feeling is relief that comes from escape or the adrenaline-pumping excitement that comes from the presence of danger, fear represents one of the strongest emotions a human can sense and we have sought it through the ages in our actions and our storytelling. For many of us an occasional taste of fear is a good thing; for some of us it is a drug, even an addiction.

No doubt about it, an underlying psychological predilection creates a receptive audience for stories of monsters. Even so, Kaplan is not content to explain them as purely psychological phenomena and settle for imaginary products of the psyche. He puts his faith in concrete origins and searches for the experiences that might reasonably occasion the monsters he catalogues. For him monster stories are accounts of reality and not just tales, however many misunderstandings and distortions intervene between experience and the story we read today. He promises that while his solutions will be speculative, they will stand on informed scientifi c foundations.

Some of his explanations sound thoroughly plausible. A story of depredations by an unusually large lion or boar requires nothing more mysterious than human contact with uncommon wildlife or an exceptional specimen of an indigenous species. Geological causes offer phenomenology with a striking similarity to some activities attributed to monsters. Take, for example, the rumbling sounds of an earthquake that might be mistaken

Book Reviews 161

for the subterranean bellows of the Minotaur, and the heaving ground for evidence that he stirred just beneath the surface. A mass of bones left by several animal species killed in a fl ood could be mistaken for one animal of many parts, while ancient peoples puzzling over the gigantic bones left by extinct reptiles and mammals might well have imagined serpentine monsters, bird monsters, monsters with enormous teeth and grotesque form. His answer for elements of the dragon story is particularly convincing. The dragon of Beowulf guards underground treasure, breathes fi re, and spews poison. The burial of treasure in caves and underground tombs placed these objects in an environment where fl ammable gases like methane might collect, where a grave robber with a torch might set off a fi ery explosion that, combined with the roaring noise of the fi re and the noxiousness of the gases, could persuade a survivor or onlooker that a deadly monster was punishing the intruder.

Naturalistic explanations continue to work for some supernatural monsters: Sleep paralysis and the hallucinations that accompany it have surely contributed much to demonology, while many attributes of vampires mimic the phenomenology of bodily decay, plague, and rabies too closely to doubt a connection. When passing into the realm of man-made monsters Kaplan has to give up natural sources and rely on fears of technology mingled, in the case of movie portrayals of cloned female monsters, with the threat of a sexually alluring creature made dangerous by a lack of humanity. To fi nd the (acceptable) science in aliens, he talks only about the prospects for extraterrestrial life, the fear of colonization played on by invasion stories like The War of the Worlds, and human reaction to the parasitic and predatory monsters of the Alien series.

Kaplan stays true to his goal of seeking out the scientifi c issues related to monsters, and this approach is fi ne as far as it goes. He emphasizes an experiential basis for many famous examples of the breed, and though he consistently reduces the experience to mistakes and misinterpretations of natural phenomena, at least he does not resort to facile dismissals of everything anomalous as mere imagination. Kaplan’s fascination with the scientifi c implications of monsters is infectious, though he sometimes becomes digressive. Some readers may tire of the lengths he goes to, for example, in arguing the many reasons that giant animals are not likely to be genetic mutations, or that the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles are admirable preservers of prehistoric animals, but the absence of such pits in Greece means no bone beds of this type could have infl uenced the Greeks. A detour into the scientifi c realities of parasitism seems unnecessary for understanding the terror response to the Alien creature exploding out of the chest of an infected crewman. The movie’s visuals were quite suffi cient

162 Book Reviews

for a good scare. While his explanations are never completely impossible, Kaplan sometimes stretches them into implausibility, as in his argument that the ancient Greeks got the idea for Medusa turning people to stone from observations of bones petrifi ed by fossilization.

One shortcoming in Kaplan’s argument is his reliance on natural science to the near-exclusion of anthropological, sociological, psychological, and humanistic contributions to the subject. Natural science can answer many questions, but cognitive psychology offers some of the most exciting current pathways to understanding the nature and persistence of monsters, and he devotes only passing attention to these fi ndings. The symbolic and metaphoric functions of the monster as an agent of chaos or expression of the Other holds as important a place in explaining the cultural hold of such ideas as natural origins or even the evolutionary foundations of fear, yet the reader fi nds little reference to this extensive literature.

Another serious omission is the life of monsters as verbal entities. Once described, talked about, and cast into stories, the verbal monster can evolve as readily as any organism, and a great deal faster. No argument about things rarely seen but often discussed should overlook the prospect that exaggeration and stereotyping shape the beast, rumor and boasting build it up, and the pressures of pleasing an audience betray facts in favor of an entertaining story. A verbal entity also enjoys mobility. Stories pass from mouth to mouth often over great distances, and those stories or others reformulated out of borrowed plots and motifs circulate ideas about monsters without need for experience. Kaplan’s emphasis on the ancient Greeks is understandable since those monsters are famous and familiar, but his hermetic treatment hastens to a natural source without considering cultural infl uences on the Greeks, who were, after all, well-traveled and exposed to the ideas of many surrounding peoples. He makes only occasional mention of the monsters of Mesopotamia, barely touches on chimerical Egyptian gods such as Thoth, with the ibis head, or Horus, the falcon god, and says nothing at all about Alexander’s encounter with the wonders of India. The ultimate source of such fi gures may have been natural, but a small bet might be in order that the proximate origin for chimerical fi gures of classical antiquity was a traveler’s tale, a statue or image traded in a market, or some other instance of culture contact. If scholars have hitherto done our understanding a disservice by downplaying the importance of experience, this book would gain balance with more acknowledgment that transmission of ideas also contributes to our monsters.

The book succeeds in what it sets out to be, a tour through a gallery of scary, semi-imaginary beings from both long ago and here today, and proposals for scientifi cally reasonable origins of each. These goals

Book Reviews 163

sacrifi ce depth for breadth and the result is limited, disappointing for the anomalist interested in the possibility of genuine cryptozoological entities, or for the scholar concerned with a well-rounded discussion of all aspects of monster theory. The casual reader or newcomer to the fi eld will fi nd a readable, informative, and entertaining introduction to monsters and an answer for some of the questions foremost in any reader’s mind. A nuanced understanding will require deeper pursuit, but this book is a good starting place, not least because of its respect for experience in the creation of seemingly fantastic stories, and for its reminder that monsters are not just things of the past. Adaptable and meaningful still, they may change shape but they continue to haunt the shadows beneath every bed.

THOMAS E. BULLARD

[email protected]


BOOK REVIEW

The Big Book of UFOs by Chris A. Rutkowski. Dundurn, 2010. 396 pp. $19.99. ISBN 978-1554887606.

You don’t need to wander very far into Chris Rutkowski’s aptly named The Big Book of UFOs to get the message: The guy knows his stuff. He’s got it in chronological order, from pre-20th century trends all the way up to the double-aughts of the 21st. He’s got it broken down into narrow categories: contactees, abductees, implants, hybrids, hoaxes, debunkers; you name it, this 396-page tome likely has a reference.

Much of the material, such as Roswell and SETI, is so familiar that you don’t even have to be a hardcore student of the genre to recognize it. But some entries are so arcane it’s doubtful that even Jeopardy-caliber UFO nerds could pass the test. Category: The 1890s Wave. Answer: During the Teddy Roosevelt Administration, sightings of unknown “airships” became so common that this company took out newspaper ads with graphic UFO illustrations stating “This Is What You Saw,” accompanied by the slogan “High up in quality, low in price.” Question: What is White Star Baking Powder?

On the other hand, Rutkowski’s sojourns into remote corners of the world could also prepare us for some future Geography category competition. There were the miners who saw triangular lights outside Taparko, Burkina Faso, on Christmas night, 2005. The following year, at Port el Kantouni, Tunisia, a couple of people reported seeing low-fl ying rods with running lights. Some encounters are more unfortunate than others. A dog dies in Uruguay from internal bleeding in 1977 as a possible result of exposure to UFO radiation. The same year, a Polish resident of Piastow suffers headaches and faceburn after an alleged encounter. In 1975, a fellow living near Macheke, Rhodesia, is thrown to the ground and rendered unconscious when struck by a “bright white beam of light” outside his house.

The Big Book of UFOs is also something of a laundry list, with declassifi ed government documents thrown in with cultural trivia. Readers are reminded, for instance, that the Robin Williams sitcom Mork & Mindy was actually a Happy Days spinoff, in which Richie Cunningham’s abduction was derailed by Fonzie’s intervention. “This episode aired several months after the infamous ‘jump the shark’ episode. . . . ” There are interactive features as well, such as a checklist to tell if you yourself might’ve been abducted by aliens.

Book Reviews 165

In other words, there is no narrative thread unifying Rutkowski’s Big Book. There doesn’t even appear to be an agenda, aside from a reference book–like compendium of 100-plus years of weird goings-on in the sky. But Rutkowski, a Canadian astronomer and science writer who’s spent more than 30 years on this dim trail without so much as the satisfaction of seeing a UFO himself, is careful not to make a case for one theory over another. In fact, he reviews the hoaxes and offers conventional explanations for incidents where conventional explanations are the most logical.

But for a long-time UFO watcher with a low threshold for offi cial nonsense, Rutkowski’s 2010 Big Book apparently delights in highlighting some of the more twisted explanations offered by authorities and debunkers.

In 1966, for instance, during what would appear to be a precursor to the crop circle mystery, an Australian farmer saw a spinning “football-shaped object” one morning that evidently left reeds and grasses in two locations depressed in a clockwise rotation. Although the Royal Australian Air Force confi rmed that no aircraft had been in that location, the local police attributed the swirls to a helicopter, and the event to the farmer having seen “sunlight gleaming on the rotating blades.”

The Big Book serves up a number of such contortions, but one of the highlights involves a retired British intelligence offi cer named Angus Brooks. In 1967, as a British Airways employee, Brooks reported a complicated, shape-shifting UFO hovering near a fi eld amid a “Force 8 gale wind.” The Ministry of Defense jumped on the case because it occurred “between an atomic energy station, an underwater weapons base, and a USAF communications base.” The MoD concluded that Brooks must have fallen asleep, and when he awoke was confronted by a “vitreous fl oater” in his eyeball. “However,” Rutkowski writes, “as the witness himself noted, it would have been nearly impossible to fall asleep while sitting in such a strong wind.”

If you’re looking for a wide-angle take on what the UFO fuss is all about—cults, astronauts, even the Face on Mars—The Big Book is as good a place as any to start. But from there, you’re on your own.

BILLY COX

[email protected]

Article of Interest

The Tobacco Beetle in Egyptian Mummies by Dominique Görlitz. Migration & Diff usion, 2011. 11 pp. http://www.migration-diff usion.info/article.php?year=2011&id=239

Dominique Görlitz is a German experimental archaeologist specializing in ancient watercraft trials. He here reviews the evidence concerning the presence of tobacco leaves, residues of nicotine and cocaine, and tobacco beetles in the tombs/mummies of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs Ramses II and Tutankhamen. In this article, he contributes valuable information and observations additional to what is covered in this writer’s earlier works (see Jett 2002, 2003–2004, of which Görlitz appears to be unaware).

While a French team was restoring Ramses’s mummy during the 1970s, it discovered shredded Nicotiana sp. leaves in the lowest parts of the abdominal cavity. The tobacco was part of a homogeneous mixture of fi nely chopped plants of various kinds, surrounded by the resins of embalmment. There was nicotine in the wrappings as well—on which also appeared an imago of a tobacco beetle, Lasioderma serricorne. Like domesticated to-bacco, this beetle is believed to be of New World origin. The tobacco-frag-ment samples were obtained with long biopsy tweezers from inaccessible sites through previously made artifi cial openings, seemingly obviating the possibility of contamination or of nineteenth-century insertion. The relevant material cannot at present be carbon dated, because the sample in Paris has disappeared.

Later, a team led by the Munich forensic pathologist Svetlana Bala-banova detected residues of nicotine in other ancient and medieval Egyp-tian mummies, fi nding greater concentrations of the alkaloid and/or its metabolites in artifi cially mummifi ed cadavers than in naturally desiccated ones. This suggests deliberate use of Nicotiana as an antiputrefactant in the mummifi cation process, in addition to ingestion. Certain other Old World plants—including solanaceous species, sour cherry, common polypody, and stonecrop—carry nicotine, but in concentrations too slight to account for the mummies’ concentrations.

The fairly recently discovered wild tobacco of Namibia belongs to the Australo–Pacifi c “subgenus Sauveolentes which contains almost no nico-tine” (p. 9) and so is not a contender as the source for Egypt.

The tobacco beetle was also found in food jars in the tomb of King Tut,


Book Reviews 167

whose inner chambers were sealed until 1922. Like Ramses’s Nicotiana, Tut’s beetles cannot be directly dated, because they are no longer extant.

Entomologists assume the species to have originated in the Americas, where it would have evolved its unique tolerance for nicotine, a toxin char-acteristic of the beetle’s preferred food. It is unable to fl y far, certainly not across oceans. It is spread mainly by carriage with its host, dry tobacco; consequently, it is unlikely to have spread to the Old World without its host. Görlitz suggests, therefore, that Lasioderma is an archaeozoan (pre-Colum-bian–introduced) rather than a neozoan (post-1492–introduced) species, carried across the Atlantic in Pharaonic times or earlier.

Regarding coca, only the American species of the genus Erythroxylum carry cocaine (although some Old World species do contain other alkaloids, including the cocaine relative tropane), and only the two South American domesticated species have this alkaloid in suffi cient concentration to ac-count for the residues in the mummies. Seemingly, the presence of cocaine evolved following the continental-drift separation of the Old World and New World populations of Erythroxylum.

The author concludes,

it must be accepted that these species were introduced from there [the New World] into the Old World cultures. We do not have strong indications today about who and which society realized these cultural interactions. It seems likely that people from young [Upper] Paleolithic cultures in Spain or their descendants—the Basques—were responsible for this pre-Columbian network trade. (p. 9)

Görlitz does not consider the possibility of transpacifi c carriage.

CR. STEPHEN C. JETT

[email protected]

Note: This review will also appear in Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 5(2–4), 6(1).

References

Jett, S. C. (2002). Nicotine and cocaine in Egyptian mummies and THC in Peruvian mummies: A review of the evidence and of scholarly reaction. Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 2(4), 297–313.

Jett, S. C. (2003–2004). More on nicotine and cocaine in Egyptian mummies: A précis of recent articles. Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 3(1–3), 45–49.

Article of Interest

Research Grants: Conform and Be Funded by Joshua M. Nicholson and John P. A. Ioannidis. Nature, 492, 2012, 34–36.

The article’s subtitle tells it all: “Too many US authors of the most innovative and infl uential papers in the life sciences do not receive NIH funding . . . ”

This fi ts in a little-remarked genre: evidence that contemporary science is very different from the popular view of it as behaving objectively by virtue of the scientifi c method and peer review. Even as many such articles document fl aws in clinical trials, statistical incompetence in much of the medical literature, and failures of peer review (for example, Altman 1994, 2002, Bauer 2013, Ioannidis 2005, Ioannidis & Panagiotou 2011), there are no effective followup ventures to improve matters.

In this instance, Nicholson and Ioannidis document with compelling data what actually is known to everyone trying to do research in biology or medicine: What matters is whom you know, not what you know or what you have discovered. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not been consistently supporting the best investigators, those whose work has had the greatest impact. One reason, with which again all insiders are familiar, is that the NIH study sections that make recommendations on grants are populated by people who themselves are very likely to have funding through NIH, albeit their work has had comparatively little impact. To exaggerate only slightly, grant proposals from geniuses are adjudicated by mediocrities.

Nicholson and Ioannidis suggest that one partial remedy would be for NIH to direct funds primarily to people of proven accomplishment instead of by the project-grant system that prevails in almost all funding of scientifi c research. The absurdity of that almost universal system is, again, widely recognized: Proposals for funding are expected to explain what the work will accomplish and what its impact will be, which cannot possibly be done if the work is to be truly creative and exploratory. So what gets funded are routine banalities. Richard Muller (1980) long ago noted what one has to do: Present a banal proposal and then bootleg as much as possible of the grant for really worthwhile work.

While this article’s analysis adds to documentation of the problem, the suggested amelioration is not likely to be feasible under present circumstances, because the judgments as to who the most accomplished


Book Reviews 169

people are would again by made by the study sections whose record is the funding of banalities (Bauer 2012).

The broadest context for the present dysfunction in science lies in societal drives for “equity” and against “elitism.” Because in the past all sorts of judgments led to discrimination against females and members of various minorities, institutions have increasingly sought to make judgments objective, and this is too often interpreted as quantitative; or, judgments are left to committees whose composition is supposed to ensure equity by including representatives of historically deprived groups. But as is well-known, committees asked to design horses are prone to come up with camels; only individuals can judge quality; and there are no quantitative measures of quality. Consequently, in much of society and much of science and much of medicine, judgments are being rendered that do not refl ect quality.

CR. HENRY H. BAUER

[email protected]

References

Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. British Medical Journal, 308, 283.Altman, D. G. (2002). Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA, 287, 2765–

2767.Bauer, H. H. (2012). Dysfunctional Research Funding. December 26, 2012. http://wp.me/p2VG42-NBauer, H. H. (2013). Peer Review and Consensus (Scientifi c Literacy, Lesson 2). January 4, 2013.

http://wp.me/p2VG42-RIoannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research fi ndings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Panagiotou, O. A. (2011). Comparison of eff ect sizes associated with

biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA, 305, 2200–2210.

Muller, R. A. (1980). Innovation and scientifi c funding. Science, 209, 880–883.

ARTICLE OF INTEREST

Awaiting a New Darwin by H. Allen Orr. The New York Review of Books, February 7, 2013, pp. 26–28.

Orr’s article is a review essay on philosopher Thomas Nagel’s recent Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Some reviews are at least as important as the book they are about. As it is, this essay is a valuable contribution to the intellectual discourse on the topics of evolution, mind, and life.

Professor Orr is a biologist at the University of Rochester. He argues that Nagel does not make his case that there are disabling problems with the Neo-Darwinian accounts for the vast evolutionary changes that have transpired with organisms over Earth’s history. He dismisses Nagel’s skepticism as only an “argument from incredulity.”

But he does share Nagel’s skepticism and sense of mystery regarding the reduction of mind and consciousness to “matter”: “. . . we haven’t the slightest idea how it would work.” And, “Brains and neurons obviously have everything to do with consciousness but how mere object can give rise to the eerily different phenomenon of subjective experience seems utterly incomprehensible” (the Hard Problem of Consciousness). Orr points to the writings of another philosopher, Colin McGinn, who contends that our mystery about consciousness is a refl ection of our cognitive limitations. Orr adds, most pertinently, “All other species have cognitive limitations, why not us?” and, “. . . the mysteriousness is not so much a challenge to Neo-Darwinism as a result of it.”1

Orr acknowl-edges “The origin of life is admittedly a hard problem. . . . ”


Erin

Pau

wel

s Col

lect

ion/

Art A

rchi

ve/A

rt R

esou

rce

“A Sun of the Nineteenth Century” cartoon from Puck magazine showing Charles Darwin as a shining sun, chasing the clouds of reli-gion and superstition from the sky, 1882 [reprinted in Orr’s review]

Book Reviews 171

Yet he thinks that “big progress” has been made. It should be commented that there are separable questions (which Orr does not offer) regarding life: What is life?2 How did it occur on Earth? And, How did life forms (organisms) change over the eons of evolutionary time? To my knowledge, Darwin did not try to tackle the fi rst two questions.

On the fi rst question, “What is life?”, perhaps there is a “Hard Problem” analogous to what David Chalmers called the “Hard Problem of Consciousness.” Orr does not go in this direction.3

Notes

1 Those interested in pursuing this line might wish to read “Kant’s A Priori in the Light of Modern Biology” by Konrad Lorenz, in Konrad Lorenz: The Man and His Ideas by Richard I. Evans (1975), writings by Harry Jerison on the evolution of intelligence, and writings on evolutionary epistemology by Donald Campbell.

2 That is, beyond the conditions and structures that enable it, just as consciousness seems not explainable by the conditions and structures that enable it.

3 Further reading might include Essays on Life Itself edited by Robert Rosen (1999), What is Life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches by Erwin Schrödinger (Foreword by Roger Penrose) (1944/Canto Classics 2012), and What Is Life? by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan (1995/2000).

CR. P. DAVID MONCRIEF

pdmoncriefj [email protected]

Reference

Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press, 130 pp.

56th Annual Convention

of the Parapsychological Association

Ora Domus La Quercia, Viterbo, Italy

August 8–11, 2013

Program Chairs: Massimo Biondi and Patrizio Tressoldi Arrangements Chairs: Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella Vannini

All submissions to the 2013 PA convention, except proposed workshops, must be submitted electronically. They should beemailed, as attachments, to the chair of the Program Commit-tee, Dr. Patrizio Tressoldi at [email protected]

First International Conference on Life Energy,

Syntropy, and Resonance

Viterbo, Italy, August 1-4, 2013

Hotel Domus La Quercia, Viterbo, Italy

World Institute for Scientifi c Exploration instituteforscientifi cexploration.org

Program Committee: Dr. Antonella Vannini, chairman, Dr. Richard Blasband, Dr. Dominique Surel, and Dr. Ulisse Di Corpo. Send an abstract to [email protected] by June 15th and the full paper by July 15th. Presenta-tions should be at least 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes, with 15 minutes allowed for questions/discussion.

Registration: €120 or $160. Presenters are not required to pay. Register here: http://wisewiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=Registration+for+the+International+Conference+on+Life+Energy%3A+Syntropy+and+ResonanceAfter registering, please send an email to the organizer Dr. Ulisse Di Corpo: [email protected] A limited number of 100 places are available.

Workshops: Three workshops will be held: The Syntropy and Life Energy Workshop (August 5)Life Energy and Methodology Workshop (August 6)Controlled Remote Viewing: A Transformational Experience Workshop (Aug. 7)After registering for the conference, send an email to the organizer Dr. Ulisse Di Corpo: [email protected]

172 SSE News

32nd ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATIONDEARBORN (DETROIT), MICHIGAN JUNE 5–JUNE 8 2013

UNSETTLED SCIENCE

Aerial Anomalies (UFOs)—Eddie Bullard (Keynote) Mark Rodeghier; Michael SwordsHistorical Anomalies (Pre-Columbian Contacts)—Stephen C. Jett (Keynote)Mind Anomalies (Levitation, Macro-PK, Yoga)—Donald J. DeGracia (Keynote)

Larry Dossey, Erik SchultesEvening Panel—Do topics under the SSE umbrella have enough in common that we can learn from each other?

PROGRAM CHAIR: [email protected] (proposals were due by Feb. 15)

The 2013 Annual SSE conference will be held at the historic Dearborn Inn, in Dearborn, Michigan, beginning with the Wednesday evening Reception June 5, and running through the Saturday evening Banquet June 8. The Inn is 12 miles from Detroit Metro Airport.

CONFERENCE HOTEL: Dearborn Inn Marriott, 20301 Oakwood Blvd., (313) 271-2700/ SSE rate $110 per night (code SSESSEA). Smoke-free environment, in-room Internet $12.95/day, free parking, gym, outdoor pool, 2 restaurants. The Inn was built in 1931 by Henry Ford. SSE will be in the Alexandria Ballroom.

CUTOFF DATE FOR THE SSE ROOM RATE IS APRIL 27, 2013. SSE rooms probably will fi ll up long before that. http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/dtwdi-the-dearborn-inn-a-marriott-hotel/

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/dtwdi?groupCode=ssessea&app=resvlink&fromDate=6/4/13&toDate=6/9/13

OTHER HOTELS: There are more economical accommodations at the nearby Comfort Inn, 20061 Michigan Ave., Dearborn, which offers complimentary breakfasts and shuttle service to nearby locations, such as local restaurants and the Henry Ford Museum. There are many other nearby hotels. http://www.comfortinn.com/hotel-dearborn-michigan-MI385

WELCOME RECEPTION: free, Wednesday evening June 5th, 6:00–9:00FRIDAY FIELD TRIP: $65 including lunch and bus trip: LaPita Restaurant, Edsel Ford Home and Grounds, Detroit Institute of ArtSATURDAY NIGHT BANQUET: $65

PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Patrick Huyghe (Chair), Erik Schulte, Henry BauerLOCAL HOST: Carl Medwedeff [email protected] REGISTRATION AND PROGRAM AT www.scientifi cexploration.org

SSE News 173

Dr. Bill BengstonSSE PresidentSt. Joseph’s CollegePatchogue, New York

Professor Robert G. JahnSSE Vice-PresidentSchool of Engineering and Applied SciencePrinceton UniversityPrinceton, New Jersey

Dr. Mark Urban-LurainSSE SecretaryCenter for Engineering Education ResearchMichigan State University428 S. Shaw Lane1410 B EngineeringEast Lansing, Michigan 48824

Society for Scientifi c Exploration

Dr. York DobynsSSE TreasurerLexington, Kentucky

Ms. Brenda DunneSSE Education Offi cerInternational Consciousness Research LaboratoriesPrinceton, New Jersey

Professor Garret ModdelSSE Past PresidentDepartment of Electrical and Computer

EngineeringUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulder, Colorado

Dr. Marsha AdamsInternational Earthlights AllianceSedona, Arizona

Dr. Julie BeischelTh e Windbridge InstituteTucson, Arizona

Dr. Richard BlasbandCenter for Functional ResearchSausalito, California

Dr. Courtney BrownEmory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia

Dr. Bernard HaischCalifornia Institute for Physics & AstrophysicsRedwood Shores, California

Dr. Roger NelsonGlobal Consciousness ProjectPrinceton University, Princeton, New Jersey

Dr. Dominique SurelEvergreen, Colorado

Dr. Chantal ToporowNorthrup GrummanRedondo Beach, California

Councilors

P. David MoncriefJSE Book Review EditorMemphis, Tennessee

L. David LeiterAssociate Members’ RepresentativeWillow Grove, Pennsylvania

Erling P. StrandEuropean Members’ RepresentativeØstfold College, Halden, Norway

Professor Peter A. Sturrock SSE FounderStanford University, Stanford, California

Appointed Offi cers

Executive Committee

174 SSE News

Index of Previous Articles in JSE 175

Vol: No Article Author(s)

1:1 A Brief History of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration P. SturrockAterations in Recollection of Unusual and Unexpected Events D. Hall et al.Toward a Quantitative Th eory of Intellectual Discovery (Esp. in Phys.) R. FowlerEngineering Anomalies Research R. Jahn et al.Common Knowledge about the Loch Ness Monster H. BauerAn Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project P. Sturrock

1:2 Th e Strange Properties of Psychokinesis H. SchmidtWhat Do We Mean by ‘‘Scientifi c?’’ H. BauerAnalysis of a UFO Photograph R. HainesPeriodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand B. Maccabee

2:1 Commonalities in Arguments over Anomalies H. BauerRemote Viewing and Computer Communications—An Experiment J. ValleeIs Th ere a Mars Eff ect? M. GauquelinRaising the Hurdle for the Athletes’ Mars Eff ect S. Ertel

2:2 UFOs and NASA R. HenryTh e Nature of Time Y. TerzianOperator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade B. Dunne et al.Evidence for a Short-Period Internal Clock in Humans T. SlangerTh ree New Cases of Reincarnation Types in Sri Lanka with Written Records I. Stevenson et al.

3:1 Arguments Over Anomalies: H. \?Polemics H. BauerAnomalies: Analysis and Aesthetics R. JahnTrends in the Study of Out-of-Body Experiences C. AlvaradoA Methodology for the Objective Study of Transpersonal Imagery W. Braud/

M. SchlitzTh e Infl uence of Intention on Random and Pseudorandom Events D. Radin/J. UttsCase of Possession Type in India with Evidence of Paranormal Knowledge I. Stevenson et al.

3:2 New Ideas in Science T. GoldPhoto Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica R. Haines/J. ValleeTh ree Cases of Children in Northern India Who Remember a Previous Life A. Mills‘‘Signatures’’ in Anomalous Human–Machine Interaction Data D. RadinA Case of Severe Birth Defects Possibly Due to Cursing I. Stevenson

4:1 Biochemical Traumatology/Plant Metabolic Disorders in a UFO Landing M. BouniasReturn to Trans-en-Provence J. ValleeAnalysis of Anomalous Physical Traces: 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case J. VelascoPhysical Interpretation of Very Small Concentrations H. BauerLuminous Phenomena and Seismic Energy in the Central United States J. Derr/ M. PersingerPhoto Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica: New Evidence R. Haines/J. ValleeA Scientifi c Inquiry into the Validity of Astrology J. McGrew/

R. McFallPlanetary Infl uences on Human Behavior: Absurd for a Scientifi c Explanation? A. MüllerFive Arguments against Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentifi ed Flying Objects J. Vallee

4:2 Using the Study of Anomalies To Enhance Critical Th inking in the Classroom M. SwordsObservations of Electromagnetic Signals Prior to California Earthquakes M. AdamsBayesian Analysis of Random Event Generator Data W. Jeff erysMoslem Case of Reincarnation Type in Northern India: Analysis of 26 Cases A. MillsElectromagnetic Disturbances Associated with Earthquakes M. ParrotExtrasensory Interactions between Homo Sapiens and Microbes C. Pleass/N. DeyCorrelation between Mental Processes and External Random Events H. SchmidtPhobias in Children Who Claim To Remember Previous Lives I. StevensonA Gas Discharge Device for Investigating Focused Human Attention W. Tiller

Index of Previous Articles in the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration

176 Index of Previous Articles in JSE

Radio Emissions from an Earthquake J. Warwick5:1 Th e Cydonian Hypothesis J. Brandenburg et al.

Cases in Burma, Th ailand, and Turkey: Aspects of I. Stevenson’s Research J. KeilEff ects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice: A Meta-Analysis D. Radin/D. FerrariTh e Wasgo or Sisiutl: A Cryptozoological Sea-Animal M. SwordsTh e Extraterrestrial Hypothesis Is Not Th at Bad R. WoodToward a Second-Degree Extraterrestrial Th eory of UFOs J. ValleeLow-Frequency Emissions: Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions in Japan T. Yoshino

5:2 Eccles’s Model of Mind–Brain Interaction and Psychokinesis W. Giroldini Ball Lightning and St. Elmo’s Fire as Forms of Th understorm Activity A. Grigor’ev et al. Social Scientifi c Paradigms for Investigating Anomalous Experience J. McClenon Count Population Profi les in Engineering Anomalies Experiments R. Jahn et al. Children Claiming Past-Life Memories: Four Cases in Sri Lanka E. Haraldsson6:1 Can the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Vallee Hypotheses Be Reconciled? W. Bramley Learning for Discovery: Establishing the Foundations R. Domaingue On the Bayesian Analysis of REG Data (Response from W. Jeff erys) Y. Dobyns Electrodynamic Activities and Th eir Role in the Organization of Body Pattern M. W. Ho et al.6:2 Review of Approaches to the Study of Spontaneous Psi Experiences R. White Survival or Super-Psi?: Interchange Responses I. Stevenson/S.

Braude Th e Psychokinesis Eff ect: Geomagnetic Infl uence, Age and Sex Diff erences L. Gissurarson Are Reincarnation Type Cases Shaped by Parental Guidance? S. Pasricha6:3 Heim’s Th eory of Elementary Particle Structures T. Auerbach Better Blood through Chemistry: A Laboratory Replication of a Miracle M. Epstein The Gauquelin Eff ect Explained? Comments on Müller’s Planetary Correlations S. Ertel Th e Gauquelin Eff ect Explained? A Rejoinder to Ertel’s Critique A. Müller Ball Lightning Penetration into Closed Rooms: 43 Eyewitness Accounts A. Grivor’ev et al. A Series of Possibly Paranormal Recurrent Dreams I. Stevenson6:4 Experiments in Remote Human/Machine Interaction B. Dunne et al. A Low Light Level Diff raction Experiment for Anomalies Research S. Jeff ers et al. A New Look at Maternal Impressions: An Analysis of 50 Published Cases I. Stevenson Alternative Healing Th erapy on Regeneration Rate of Salamander Forelimbs D. Wirth et al.7:1 Accultured Topographical Eff ects of Shamanic Trance Consciousness P. Devereux Mainstream Sciences vs. Parasciences: Toward an Old Dualism? G. L. Eberlein Existence of Life and Homeostasis in an Atmospheric Environment S. Moriyama A Guide to UFO Research M. D. Swords7:2 Non-Causality as the Earmark of Psi H. Schmidt Adequate Epistemology for Scientifi c Exploration of Consciousness W. W. Harman Puzzling Eminence Eff ects Might Make Good Sense S. Ertel Comments on Puzzling Eminence Eff ects J. W. Nienhuys A Systematic Survey of Near-Death Experiences in South India S. Pasricha Th e Willamette Pass Oregon UFO Photo Revisited: An Explanation I. Wieder7:3 Near Death Experiences: Evidence for Life After Death? M. Schröter-

Kunhardt Analysis of the May 18, 1992, UFO Sighting in Gulf Breeze, Florida B. Maccabee Selection Versus Infl uence in Remote REG Anomalies Y. Dobyns Dutch Investigation of the Gauquelin Mars Eff ect J. Nienhuys Comments on Dutch Investigations of the Gauquelin Mars Eff ect S. Ertel What Are Subtle Energies? W. Tiller7:4 Explaining the Mysterious Sounds Produced by Very Large Meteor Fireballs C. S. L. Keay Neural Network Analyses of Consciousness-Related Patterns D. I. Radin Applied Parapsychology: Studies of Psychics and Healers S. A. Schouten Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons I. Stevenson


Th e ‘‘Enemies’’ of Parapsychology R. McConnell8:1 Survey of the American Astronomical Society Concerning UFOs: Part 1 P. Sturrock Anatomy of a Hoax: Th e Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later J. Vallee Healing and the Mind: Is Th ere a Dark Side? L. Dossey Alleged Experiences Inside UFOs: An Analysis of Abduction Reports V. Ballester Olmos What I See When I Close My Eyes R. Targ8:2 Survey of the American Astronomical Society Concerning UFOs: Part 2 P. Sturrock Series Position Eff ects in Random Event Generator Experiments B. Dunne et al. Re-Examination of the Law of Conservation of Mass in Chemical Reactions K. Volkamer et al. Th e ‘Genius Hypothesis’: Exploratory Concepts for Creativity E. Laszlo8:3 Survey of the American Astronomical Society Concerning UFOs: Part 3 P. Sturrock Strong Magnetic Field Detected Following a Sighting of an UFO B. Maccabee Complementary Healing Th erapy for Patients with Type I Diabetes Mellitus D. P. Wirth Report of an Indian Swami Claiming to Materialize Objects E. Haraldsson8:4 Scientifi c Analysis of Four Photos of a Flying Disk Near Lac Chauvet, France Pierre Guérin A Linear Pendulum Experiment: Operator Intention on Damping Rate R. D. Nelson Applied Scientifi c Inference P. A. Sturrock Th e Mind-Brain Problem J. Beloff 9:1 Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of Dowsing in Dry Zones: Part 1 H. Betz Digital Video Analysis of Anomalous Space Objects M. Carlotto Th e Critical Role of Analytical Science in the Study of Anomalies M. Epstein Near-Death Experiences in South India: A Systematic Survey S. Pasricha Human Consciousness Infl uence on Water Structure L. Pyatnitsky/ V. Fonkin9:2 Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of Dowsing in Dry Zones: Part 2 H. Betz Semi-molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation W. Levengood/MJ.

Burke Experiments on a Possible g-Ray Emission Caused by a Chemical Process V. Noninski et al. Th e Eff ect of Paranormal Healing on Tumor Growth F. Snel/

P. van der Sijde Psychokinetic Action of Young Chicks on the Path of an Illuminated Source R. Peoc’h Eddington’s Th inking on the Relation between Science and Religion A. Batten Two Kinds of Knowledge: Maps and Stories H. Bauer9:3 Experiments on Claimed Beta Particle Emission Decay V. Noninski et al. Assessing Commonalities in Randomly Paired Individuals T. Rowe et al. Anomalously Large Body Voltage Surges on Exceptional Subjects W. Tiller et al. Six Modern Apparitional Experiences I. Stevenson Viewing the Future: A Pilot Study with an Error-Detecting Protocol R. Targ et al. Could Extraterrestrial Intelligences Be Expected to Breathe Our Air? M. Swords9:4 Decision Augmentation Th eory: Applications to Random Number Generators E. May Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles & Referee Interchange (Dobyns) S. Phillips North American Indian Effi gy Mounds A. Apostol A Holistic Aesthetic for Science B. Kirchoff 10:1 An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning J. Utts Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena R. Hyman CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing Program at Stanford Research Institute H. Puthoff Remote Viewing at Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s: A Memoir R. Targ American Institutes for Research Review of the STAR GATE Program E. May FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations R. Nelson et al. Anomalous Organization of Random Events by Group Consciousness D. Radin et al.10:2 Critical Review of the ‘‘Cold Fusion’’ Eff ect E. Storms Do Nuclear Reactions Take Place Under Chemical Stimulation? J. Bockris et al. Claimed Transmutation of Elements Caused by a Chemical Process V. Noninski et al.


Selection versus Infl uence Revisited: New Methods and Conclusions Y. Dobyns Illegitimate Science? A Personal Story B. Maccabee Anomalous Phenomena Observed in the Presence of a Brazilian ‘‘Sensitive’’ S. Krippner et al.10:3 Mass Modifi cation Experiment Defi nition Study R. Forward Atmospheric Mass Loss on Mars and the Consequences H. Lammer Exploring Correlations between Local Emotional and Global Emotional Events D. Bierman Archetypes, Neurognosis and the Quantum Sea C. Laughlin10:4 Distance Healing of Patients with Major Depression B. Greyson Cases of the Reincarnation Type: Evaluation of Some Indirect Evidence J. Keil Enhanced Congruence between Dreams and Distant Target Material S. Krippner et al. Recent Responses to Survival Research (Responses by Braude & Wheatley) R. Almeder Toward a Philosophy of Science in Women’s Health Research A. Lettieri11:1 Biased Data Selection in Mars Eff ect Research S. Ertel/K. Irving Is the ‘‘Mars Eff ect’’ Genuine? P. Kurtz et al. Fortean Phenomena on Film: Evidence or Artifact? R. Lange/J. Houran Wishing for Good Weather: A Natural Experiment in Group Consciousness R. Nelson Empirical Evidence for a Non-Classical Experimenter Eff ect H. Walach/

S. Schmidt Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics D. Pratt11:2 Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time S. J. P. Spottiswoode Evidence that Objects on Mars are Artifi cial in Origin M. Carlotto Th e Astrology of Time Twins: A Re-Analysis & Referee Interchange (Roberts) C. French et al. Unconscious Perception of Future Emotions: An Experiment in Presentiment D. Radin A Bayesian Maximum-Entropy Approach to Hypothesis Testing P. Sturrock Planetary Diameters in the Surya-Siddhanta R. Th ompson Science of the Subjective R. Jahn/B. Dunne11:3 Accessing Anomalous States of Consciousness with Binaural Beat Technology F. Holmes Atwater Th e ‘‘Mars Eff ect’’ As Seen by the Committee PARA J. Dommanget Astrology and Sociability: A Comparative Psychological Analysis S. Fuzeau-Braesch Comparison between Children with and without Previous-Life Memories E. Haraldsson Did Life Originate in Space? Discussion of Implications of Recent Research A. Mugan Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention R. Jahn et al. Th e Hidden Side of Wolfgange Pauli: An Encounter with Depth Psychology Atmanspacher/

Primas11:4 Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers N. Don/G. Moura Toward a Model Relating Empathy, Charisma, and Telepathy J. Donovan Th e Zero-Point Field and the NASA Challenge of Create the Space Drive B. Haisch/A. Rueda Motivation and Meaningful Coincidence: Further Examination of Synchronicity T. Rowe et al. A Critique of Arguments Off ered against Reincarnation R. Almeder Th e Archaeology of Consciousness P. Devereux12:1 Gender Diff erences in Human/Machine Anomalies B. Dunne Statement Validity Analysis of ‘‘Jim Ragsdale Story’’: Roswell Implications J. Houran/S. Porter Experiment Eff ects in Scientifi c Research: How Widely Are Th ey Neglected? R. Sheldrake Roswell—Anatomy of a Myth K. Jeff ery A Diff erent View of ‘‘Roswell—Anatomy of a Myth’’ M. Swords Critique of ‘‘Roswell—Anatomy of a Myth’’ R. Woods12:2 Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports P. A. Sturrock et al. Empirical Evidence Against Decision Augmentation Th eory Y. Dobyns/R. Nelson Cases of Reincarnation in Northern India with Birthmarks and Birth Defects S. Pasricha Can the Vacuum Be Engineered for Spacefl ight Applications? Overview. H. E. Puthoff Four Paradoxes Involving the Second Law of Th ermodynamics D. Sheehan Th e Paranormal Is Not Excluded from Physics O. Costa de

Beauregard


12:3 Estimates of Optical Power Output in Six Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects J. Vallee Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples J. Vallee Do Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for Survival of Human Personality E. Cook et al. Anomalous Statistical Infl uence Depends on Details of Random Process M. Ibison FieldREG II: Consciousness Field Eff ects: Replications and Explorations R. D. Nelson et al. Biological Eff ects of Very Low Frequency (VLF) Atmospherics in Humans A. Schienle et al.12:4 Th e Timing of Conscious Experience: Causality-Violating F. A. Wolf

Double-Slit Diff raction Experiment of Investigate Consciousness Anomalies M. Ibison/S. Jeff ers Techno-Dowsing: A Physiological Response System to Improve Psi Training P. Stevens Physical Measurement of Episodes of Focused Group Energy W. Rowe Experimental Studies of Telepathic Group Communication of Emotions J. Dalkvist/

Westerlund Strategies for Dissenting Scientists B. Martin13:1 Signifi cance Levels for the Assessment of Anomalous Phenomena R. A. J. Matthews Retrotransposons as Engines of Human Bodily Transformation C. A. Kelleher A Rescaled Range Analysis of Random Events F. Pallikari/E. Boller Subtle Domain Connections to the Physical Domain Aspect of Reality W. A. Tiller Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and Conclusions K. A. Kress Dreaming Consciousness: More Th an a Bit Player in the Mind/Body Problem M. Ullman13:2 Th e Eff ect of ‘‘Healing with Intent’’ on Pepsin Enzyme Activity T. Bunnell Electronic Device-Mediated pH Changes in Water W. Dibble/W. Tiller Variations on the Foundations of Dirac’s Quantum Physics J. Edmonds Do Cases of the Reincarnation Type Show Similar Features over Many Years? J. Keil/I. Stevenson Optical Power Output of an Unidentifi ed High Altitude Light Source B. Maccabee Registration of Actual and Intended Eye Gaze: Correlation with Spiritual Beliefs G. Schwartz/

L. Russek Real Communication? Report on a SORRAT Letter-Writing Experiment I. Grattan-Guinness What are the Irreducible Components of the Scientifi c Enterprise? I. Stevenson Anomalies in the History of Relativity I. McCausland Magic of Signs: A Nonlocal Interpretation of Homeopathy H. Walach13:3 Second Sight and Family History: Pedigree and Segregation Analyses S. Cohn Mound Confi gurations on the Martian Cydonia Plain H. Crater/

S. McDanielGeomorphology of Selected Massifs on the Plains of Cydonia, Mars D. PieriAtmosphere or UFO? A Response to the 1997 SSE Review Panel Report B. MaccabeeAn Unusual Case of Stigmatization M. MargnelliMethuselah: Oldest Myth. or Oldest Man? L. McKagueAnalysis of Technically Inventive Dream-Like Mental Imagery B. Towe/

Randall-MayExploring the Limits of Direct Mental Infl uence: Two Studies C. Watt et al.

13:4 Experimental Systems in Mind–Matter Research R. MorrisBasic Elements and Problems of Probability Th eory H. PrimasTh e Signifi cance of Statistics in Mind–Matter Research R. UttsIntroductory Remarks on Large Deviations Statistics Amann/

Atmanspacherp-adic Information Spaces. Small Probabilities and Anomalous Phenomena A. KhrennikovTowards an Understanding of the Nature of Racial Prejudice Hoyle/

WickramasingheClyde Tombaugh, Mars and UFOs M. Swords

14:1 Investigating Deviations from Dynamical Randomness with Scaling Indices Atmanspacher et al.Valentich Disappearence: New Evidence and New Conclusion R. Haines/P.

NormanProtection of Mice from Tularemia with Ultra-Low Agitated Dilutions W. Jonas/D. Dillner


Th e Correlation of the Gradient of Shannon Entropy and Anomalous Cognition Spottiswoode/FaithContributions to Variance in REG Experiments: ANOVA Models R. Nelson et al.Publication Bias: Th e ‘‘File-Drawer’’ Problem in Scientifi c Inference J. ScargleRemote Viewing in a Group Setting R. Targ/J. Katra

14:2 Overview of Several Th eoretical Models on PEAR Data Y. DobynsTh e Ordering of Random Events by Emotional Expression R. BlasbandEnergy, Fitness and Information-Augmented EMFs in Drosophila melanogaster M. Kohane/ W. TillerA Dog Th at Seems To Know When His Owner Is Coming Home R. Sheldrake/

P. SmartWhat Can Elementary Particles Tell Us about the World in Which We Live? R. BryanModern Physics and Subtle Realms: Not Mutually Exclusive R. Klauber

14:3 Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Th reat D. PrattTh e Eff ect of the ‘‘Laying On of Hands’’ on Transplanted Breast Cancer in Mice Bengston/KrinsleyStability of Assessments of Paranormal Connections in Reincarnation Type Cases I. Stevenson/J. KeilArtREG: A Random Event Experiment Utilizing Picture-Preference Feedback R. G. Jahn et al.Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? D. BishaiTh e Mars Eff ect Is Genuine S. Ertel/K. IrvingBulky Mars Eff ect Hard To Hide S. ErtelWhat Has Science Come to? H. Arp

14:4 Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments Jahn/Mischo/Vaitl et al.

Unusual Play in Young Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives I. StevensonA Scale to Measure the Strength of Children’s Claims of Previous Lives J. B. TuckerReanalysis of the 1965 Hefl in UFO Photos Druff el/Wood/

KelsonShould You Take Aspirin To Prevent Heart Attack? J. M. Kauff man

15:1 Th e Biomedical Signifi cance of Homocysteine K. McCully20th and 21st Century Science: Refl ections and Projections R. G. JahnTo Be Or Not To Be! A ‘Paraphysics’ for the New Millennium J. E. BeichlerScience of the Future in Light of Alterations of Consciousness I. BarušsComposition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium P. A. SturrockDoes Recurrent ISP Involve More Th an Congnitive Neuroscience? J.-C. Terrillon/ S. Marques

Bonham15:2 Th e Scole Investigation: Critical Analysis of Paranormal Physical Phenomena M. Keen

Bio-photons and Bio-communication R. VanWijkScalar Waves: Th eory and Experiments K. MeylCommentary: On Existence of K. Meyl’s Scalar Waves G. W. BruhnCases of the Reincarnation Type in South India: Why So Few Reports? S. K. PasrichaMind, Matter, and Diversity of Stable Isotopes J. P. Pui/A. A.

BerezinAre the Apparitions of Medjugorge Real? J. P. PandarakalamWhere Do We File ‘Flying Saucers’? Archivist and Uncertainty Principle H. EvansTh e Bakken: A Library and Museum of Electricity in Life D. Stillings

15:3 A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5) R. G. Jahn/B. J. Dunne

Th e Speed of Th ought: Complex Space–Time Metric and Psychic Phenomenon E. A. Rauscher/R. Targ

Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon I. BarušsExperimental Study on Precognition Vasilescu/VasilescuUnexplained Temporal Coincidence of Crystallization Constain/Davies

15:4 Th e Challenge of Consciousness R. G. Jahn


Anomalies and Surprises H. H. BauerEarth Geodynamic Hypotheses Updated N. C. SmootUnexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death L. E. Hollander, Jr.Physico-Chemical Properties of Water Following Exposure to Resonant Circuits C. Cardella et al.

16:1 Can Physics Accommodate Clairvoyance, Precognition, and Psychokinesis? R. ShoupTh e Pineal Gland and the Ancient Art of Iatromathematica F. McGillionConfounds in Deciphering the Ramey Memo from the Roswell UFO Case J. Houran/

K. D. RandleTh e Pathology of Organized Skepticism L. D. LeiterAspects of the Wave Mechanics of Two Particles in a Many Body Quantum System Y. S. JainMicroscopic Th eory of a System of Interacting Bosons: A Unifying New Approach Y. S. JainUnifi cation of the Physics of Interacting Bosons and Fermions Y. S. JainTh e Pathology of Organized Skepticism L. D. Leiter

16:2 Arguing for an Observational Th eory of Paranormal Phenomena J. M. HoutkooperDiff erential Event-Related Potentials to Targets and Decoys in Guessing Task McDonough/Don/

WarrenStigmatic Phenomena: An Alleged Case in Brazil S. KrippnerTh e Case for the Loch Ness ‘‘Monster’’: Th e Scientifi c Evidence H. H. BauerWhat’s an Editor To Do? H. H. Bauer

16:3 M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M5 R. G. JahnCan Longitudinal Electromagnetic Waves Exist? G. W. BruhnDevelopment of Certainty about the Deceased in Reincarnation Case in Lebanon Haraldsson/

IzzeddinManifestation and Eff ects of External Qi of Yan Xin Life Science Technology Yan et al.Face-Like Feature at West Candor Chasma, Mars MGS Image AB 108403 Crater/LevasseurA Search for Anomalies W. R. CorlissCommon Knowledge about the Loch Ness Monster: Television, Videos, and Film H. H. Bauer

16:4 Relationships Between Random Physical Events and Mass Human Attention D. RadinCoherent Consciousness and Reduced Randomness: Correlations on 9/11/2001 R. D. NelsonWas Th ere Evidence of Global Consciousness on September 11, 2001? J. ScargleA Dog Th at Seems To Know When His Owner Is Coming Home D. RadinAn Investigation on the Activity Pattern of Alchemical Transmutations J. Pérez-ParienteAnomalies in Relativistic Rotation R. D. KlauberTh e Vardøgr, Perhaps Another Indicator of the Non-Locality of Consciousness L. D. LeiterReview of the Perrott-Warrick Conference Held at Cambridge 3–5 April 2000 B. CarrWavelike Coherence and CPT Invariance: Sesames of the Paranormal O. Costa de

BeauregardWhy Only 4 Dimensions Will Not Explain Relationships in Precognition Rauscher/Targ

17:1 Problems Reporting Anomalous Observations in Anthropology C. RichardsTh e Fringe of American Archaeology A. B. KehoeRocks Th at Crackle and Sparkle and Glow: Strange Pre-Earthquake Phenomena F. T. FreundPoltergeists, Electromagnetism and Consciousness W. G. RollAIDS: Scientifi c or Viral Catastrophe? N. Hodgkinson

17:2 Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research B. J. Dunne/R. G. Jahn

Problems of Reproducibility in Complex Mind–Matter Systems H. AtmanspacherParapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science? M.-C. MousseauTh e Similarity of Features of Reincarnation Type Cases Over Many Years: I. Stevenson/ A Th ird Study E. HaraldssonCommunicating with the Dead: Th e Evidence Ignored. Why Paul Kurtz is Wrong M. KeenPurported Anomalous Perception in a Highly Skilled Individual: G. E. Schwartz/ Observations, Interpretations, Compassion L. A. Nelson/L. G

Russek


Proof Positive—Loch Ness Was an Ancient Arm of the Sea F. M. Dougherty17:3 Radiation Hormesis: Demonstrated, Deconstructed, Denied, J. M. Kauff man

Dismissed, and Some Implications for Public Policy Video Analysis of an Anomalous Image Filmed during Apollo 16 H. NakamuraTh e Missing Science of Ball Lightning D. J. TurnerPattern Count Statistics for the Analysis of Time Series in Mind–Matter Studies W. EhmReplication Attempt: No Development of pH or Temperature Oscillations L. I. Mason/ in Water Using Intention Imprinted Electronic Devices R. P. PattersonTh ree Cases of the Reincarnation Type in the Netherlands T. Rivas

17:4 Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy R. Sheldrake/A. Morgana

Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response: Analyses, Artifacts and a S. J. P. Spottiswode Pilot Study /E. C. MayEff ects of Frontal Lobe Lesions on Intentionality and Random M. Freedman/S. Physical Phenomena Jeff ers/K. Saeger/Physical Phenomena /M. Binns/S. BlackTh e Use of Music Th erapy as a Clinical Intervention for Physiologist D. S. Berger/ Functional Adaptation Media Coverage of Parapsychology D. J. Schneck/ and the Prevalence of Irrational Beliefs M.-C. MousseauTh e Einstein Mystique I. McCausland

18:1 A Retrospective on the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration B. Haisch/M. SimsAnomalous Experience of a Family Physician J. H. Armstrong, Sr.Historical Overview & Basic Facts Involved in the Sasquatch or J. Green Bigfoot Phenomenon Th e Sasquatch: An Unwelcome and Premature Zoological Discovery? J. A. BindernagelMidfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: D. J. Meldrum New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism Low-Carbohydrate Diets J. M. Kauff man

18:2 Analysis of the Columbia Shuttle Disaster— J. P. MacLean/ Anatomy of a Flawed Investigation in a Pathological Organization G. Campbell/

S. SealsLong-Term Scientifi c Survey of the Hessdalen Phenomenon M. TeodoraniElectrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions D. I. RadinIntelligent Design: Ready for Prime Time? A. D. GishlickOn Events Possibly Related to the ‘‘Brazil Magnesium’’ P. Kaufmann/

P. A. SturrockEntropy and Subtle Interactions G. Moddel‘‘Can a Single Bubble Sink a Ship?’’ D. Deming

18:3 Th e MegaREG Experiment Y. H. Dobyns et al.Replication and Interpretation Time-Series Analysis of a Catalog of UFO P. A. Sturrock Events: Evidence of a Local-Sidereal-Time Modulation Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms J. M. Campanario/

B. MartinBall Lightning and Atmospheric Light Phenomena: A Common Origin? T. Wessel-Berg

18:4 Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality R. G. Jahn/ B. J. Dunne

Th e Hum: An Anomalous Sound Heard Around the World D. DemingExperimental Test of Possible Psychological Benefi ts of Past-Life Regression K. Woods/I. BarušsInferences from the Case of Ajendra Singh Chauhan: Th e Eff ect of Parental A. Mills Questioning, of Meeting the “Previous Life” Family, an Attempt To Quantify Probabilities, and the Impact on His Life as a Young Adult Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels H. H. BauerOrganized Skepticism Revisited L. D. Leiter


19:1 Th e Eff ect of a Change in Pro Attitude on Paranormal Performance: L. Storm/ A Pilot Study Using Naive and Sophisticated Skeptics M. A. Th albourne

Th e Paradox of Planetary Metals Y. AlmirantisAn Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat S. T. Tassos/ Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound D. J. FordChildren Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives: Cases with H. H. Jürgen Keil/ Written Records Made before the Previous Personality Was Identifi ed J. B. Tucker

19:2 Balls of Light: Th e Questionable Science of Crop Circles F. Grassi/C. Cocheo/P. Russo

Children of Myanmar Who Behave like Japanese Soldiers: A Possible Th ird I. Stevenson/J. Keil Element in Personality Challenging the Paradigm B. MaccabeeTh e PEAR Proposition R. G. Jahn/B. J.

DunneGlobal Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s D. Deming State of Fear

19:3 A State of Belief Is a State of Being Charles EisensteinAnomalous Orbic ‘‘Spirit’’ Photographs? A Conventional Optical Explanation G. E. Schwartz/

K. CreathSome Bodily Malformations Attributed to Previous Lives S. K. Pasricha et al.A State of Belief Is a State of Being C. EisensteinHIV, As Told by Its Discoverers H. H. BauerKicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable H. H. Bauer and Th inking the Impermissible

19:4 Among the Anomalies J. ClarkWhat Biophoton Images of Plants Can Tell Us about Biofi elds and Healing K. Creath/

G. E. SchwartzDemographic Characteristics of HIV: I. How Did HIV Spread? H. H. Bauer

20:1 Half a Career with the Paranormal I. StevensonPure Inference with Credibility Functions M. AickinQuestioning Answers on the Hessdalen Phenomenon M. LeoneHessdalen Research: A Few Non-Questioning Answers M. TeodoraniDemographic Characteristics of HIV: II. How Did HIV Spread H. H. BauerOrganized Opposition to Plate Techtonics: D. Pratt Th e New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group

20:2 Time-Normalized Yield: A Natrual Unit for Eff ect Size in R. D. Nelson Anomalies Experiments Th e Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether Detected S. J. G. Gift

A Unifi ed Th eory of Ball Lightning and Unexplained Atmospheric Lights P. F. ColemanExperimenter Eff ects in Laboratory Tests of ESP and PK Using a C. A. Roe/ Common Protocol R. Davey/P. StevensDemographic Characteristics of HIV: III. Why Does HIV Discriminate by Race H. H. Bauer

20:3 Assessing the Evidence for Mind–Matter Interaction Eff ects D. Radin et al.Experiments Testing Models of Mind–Matter Interaction D. RadinA Critique of the Parapsychological Random Number Generator M. H. Schub Meta-Analyses of Radin and Nelson Comment on: “A Critique of the Parapsychological Random Number J. D. Scargle Generator Meta-Analyses of Radin and Nelson” Th e Two-Edged Sword of Skepticism: Occam’s Razor and Occam’s Lobotomy H. H. Bauer

20:4 Consciousness and the Anomalous Organization of Random Events: L. A. Nelson/ Th e Role of Absorption G. E.Schwartz

Ufology: What Have We Learned? M. D. Swords21:1 Linking String and Membrane Th eory to Quantum Mechanics & Special M. G. Hocking

Relativity Equations, Avoiding Any Special Relativity Assumptions


Response of an REG-Driven Robot to Operator Intention R. G. Jahn et al.Time-Series Power Spectrum Analysis of Performance in Free Response P. A. Sturrock/ Anomalous Cognition Experiments S. J. SpottiswoodeA Methodology for Studying Various Interpretations of the M. A. Rodriguez N,N-dimethyltryptamine-Induced Alternate RealityAn Experimental Test of Instrumental Transcommunication I. BarušsAn Analysis of Contextual Variables and the Incidence of Photographic D. B. Terhune et al. Anomalies at an Alleged Haunt and a Control Site Th e Function of Book Reviews in Anomalistics G. H. HövelmannOckham’s Razor and Its Improper Use D. GernertScience: Past, Present, and Future H. H. Bauer

21:2 Th e Role of Anomalies in Scientifi c Exploration P. A. SturrockTh e Yantra Experiment Y. H. Dobyns et al.An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in Relation to Dog Behaviour S. Fuzeau-Braesch/ Diff erences by Statistical Analysis & Compared with Human Characteristics J.-B. DenisExploratory Study: Th e Random Number Generator and Group Meditation L. I. Mason et al.Statistical Consequences of Data Selection Y. H. Dobyns

21:3 Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Run length R. G. Jahn/Y. H. Dobyns

Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Elemental Binary Probability R. G. Jahn/J. C. Valentino

Eff ect of Belief on Psi Performance in a Card Guessing Task K. Walsh/G. Moddel

An Automated Online Telepathy Test R. Sheldrake/M. Lambert

Th ree Logical Proofs: Th e Five-Dimensional Reality of Space–Time J. E. BeichlerChildren Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives: Past, Present, & Future Research J. B. TuckerMemory and Precognition J. TaylorAIDS, Cancer and Arthritis: A New Perspective N. HodgkinsonOnline Historical Materials about Psychic Phenomena C. S. Alvarado

21:4 Synthesis of Biologically Important Precursors on Titan Sam H. Abbas/Is the Psychokinetic Eff ect as Found with Binary Random Number D. Schulze- Generators Suitable to Account for Mind–Brain Interaction? Makuch/ Wolfgang HelfrichExplorations in Precognitive Dreaming Dale E. Graff Climate Change Reexamined Joel M. Kauff manFranklin Wolff ’s Mathematical Resolution of Existential Issues Imants BarušsFrom Healing to Religiosity Kevin W. Chen

22:1 Th eme and Variations: Th e Life and Work of Ian Stevenson Emily Williams Kelly/

Carlos S. AlvaradoIan Stevenson: Recollections Kerr L. WhiteRefl ections on the Life and Work of Ian Stevenson Alan GauldIan Stevenson and Cases of the Reincarnation Type Jim B. TuckerIan Stevenson and the Modern Study of Spontaneous ESP Experiences Carlos S. Alvarado/ Nancy L. ZingroneIan Stevenson’s Contributions to Near-Death Studies Bruce GreysonIan Stevenson’s Contributions to the Study of Mediumship Erlendur

HaraldssonWhere Science and Religion Intersect: Th e Work of Ian Stevenson Edward F. Kelly/ Emily Williams

KellyTh e Gentle American Doctor M.M. Abu-Izzeddin


Professor Ian Stevenson—Some Personal Reminiscences Mary Rose Barrington

Ian Stevenson: A Recollection and Tribute Stephen E. BraudeIan Stevenson and His Impact on Foreign Shores Bernard CarrIan Stevenson: Gentleman and Scholar Lisette ColyTh e Quest for Acceptance Stuart J. EdelsteinIan Stevenson: Founder of the Scientifi c Investigation of Human Reincarnation Doris Kuhlmann-

Wilsdorf Remembering My Teacher L. David Leiter

Comments on Ian Stevenson, M.D., Director of the Division of Personality Antonia Mills Studies and Pioneer of Reincarnation ResearchIan Stevenson: Reminiscences and Observations John PalmerDr. Ian Stevenson: A Multifaceted Personality Satwant K. PasrichaA Good Question Tom ShroderTh e Fight for the Truth John SmythiesIan Stevenson: A Man from Whom We Should Learn Rex StanfordIan Stevenson and the Society for Scientifi c Exploration Peter A. SturrockIan Stevenson’s Early Years in Charlottesville Ruth B. WeeksTribute to a Remarkable Scholar Donald J. WestAn Ian Stevenson Remembrance Ray Westphal

22:2 Meditation on Consciousness I. IvtzanAn Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic S. M. Roney- Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists Dougal/ J. Solfvin/J. FoxTh ematic Analysis of Research Mediums’ Experiences of A. J. Rock/J Discarnate Communcation Beischel/ G. E. SchwartzChange the Rules! R. G. Jahn/

B. J. DunneProposed Criteria for the Necessary Conditions for ShamanicJourneying Imagery A. J. Rock/S.

Krippner‘‘Scalar Wave Eff ects according to Tesla’’ & ‘‘Far Range Transponder’’by K. Meyl D. KühlkeHow to Reject Any Scientifi c Manuscript D. Gernert

22:3 Unusual Atmospheric Phenomena Observed Near the Channel Islands, J.-F. Baure/ United Kingdom, 23 April 2007 D. Clarke/ P. Fuller/M. Shough

Th e GCP Event Experiment: Design, Analytical Methods, Results P. Bancel/R. NelsonNew Insights into the Links between ESP and Geomagnetic Activity Adrian RyanPhenomenology of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine Use: A Th ematic Analysis C. Cott/A. RockAltered Experience Mediates the Relationship between Schizotypy and A. Rock/G. Abbott/ Mood Disturbance during Shamanic-Like Journeying N. KambouropoulosPersistence of Past-Life Memories: Study of Adults Who Claimed in Th eir E. Haraldsson Childhood To Remember a Past Life

22:4 Energy, Entropy, and the Environment (How to Increase the First D. P. Sheehan by Decreasing the Second to Save the Th ird)

Eff ects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: D. Radin/N. Lund/ A Triple-Blind Replication M. Emoto/T. KizuChanges in Physical Strength During Nutritional Testing C. F. Buhler/ P. R. Burgess/ E. VanWagonerInvestigating Scopesthesia: Attentional Transitions, Controls and Rupert Sheldrake/ Error Rates in Repeated Tests Pamela SmartShakespeare: Th e Authorship Question, A Bayesian Approach P. A. Sturrock


An Anomalous Legal Decision Richard A. Blasband

23:1 A New Experimental Approach to Weight Change Experiments at the Moment Masayoshi Ishida of Death with a Review of Lewis E. Hollander’s Experiments on Sheep An Automated Test for Telepathy in Connection with Emails R. Sheldrake/ L. Avraamides

Brain and Consciousness: Th e Ghost in the Machines John SmythiesIn Defense of Intuition: Exploring the Physical Foundations of Ervin Laszlo Spontaneous Apprehension

23:2 Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests Suitbert Ertel A Field-Th eoretic View of Consciousness: Reply to Critics D. W. Orne-

Johnson/ Robert M. OatesSuper-Psi and the Survivalist Interpretation of Mediumship Michael SudduthPerspectival Awareness and Postmortem Survival Stephen E. Braude

23:3 Exploratory Evidence for Correlations between Entrained Dean Radin/ Mental Coherence and Random Physical Systems F. Holmes AtwaterScientifi c Research between Orthodoxy and Anomaly Harald

Atmanspacher23:4 Cold Fusion: Fact or Fantasy? M. E. Little/S. R.

Little “Extraordinary Evidence” Replication Eff ort M. E. Little/S. R.

Little Survey of the Observed Excess Energy and Emissions in Lattice- Mitchell R. Swartz Assisted Nuclear Reactions24:1 Rebuttal to Claimed Refutations of Duncan MacDougall’s Experiment Masayoshi Ishida on Human Weight Change at the Moment of Death Unexpected Behavior of Matter in Conjunction with Human Consciousness Dong Shen Randomized Expectancy-Enhanced Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Impact Adam J. Rock of Quantum BioEnergetics and Mental Boundaries on Aff ect Fiona E. Permezel A Case of the Reincarnation Type in Turkey Suggesting Strong Jürgen Keil Paranormal Information Involvements Questions of the Reincarnation Type Jürgen Keil How To Improve the Study and Documentation of Cases of the Vitor Moura Visoni Reincarnation Type? A Reappraisal of the Case of Kemal Atasoy24:2 Importance of a Psychosocial Approach for a Comprehensive E. Maraldi, F. Ma- Understanding of Mediumship chado, W. Zangari Investigating Mental Mediums: Research Suggestions from the Historical Literature Carlos S. Alvarado Advantages of Being Multiplex Michael Grosso Some Directions for Mediumship Research Emily W. Kelly Parapsychology in France after May 1968: A History of GERP Renaud Evrard Remy Chauvin (1913–2009) Renaud Evrard24:3 Anomalous Magnetic Field Activity During a Bioenergy Healing Margaret M. Moga Experiment William F. Bengston Further Evidence of the Possibility of Exploiting Anticipatory Physiological Patrizio E. Tressoldi Signals To Assist Implicit Intuition of Random Events M. Martinelli Laura Scartezzini Stefano Massaccesi Fire in Copenhagen and Stockholm. Indridason’s and Swedenborg’s E. Haraldsson “Remote Viewing” Experiences Johan L. F. Gerding Soal’s Target Digits: Statistical Links Back to the Source He Reported After All Roderick Garton


Common Paranormal Belief Dimensions Neil Dagnall Andrew Parker Gary Munley K. Drinkwater Th e 1907 Psychokinetic Experiments of Professor Filippo Bottazzi Antonio Giuditta24:4 Psi in a Skeptic’s Lab: A Successful Replication of Ertel’s Ball Selection Test Suitbert Ertel Anticipatory Alarm Behavior in Bengalese Finches Fernando Alvarez Th e Daniel Experiment: Sitter Group Contributions Mike Wilson with Field RNG and MESA Recordings Bryan J. Williams

Timothy M. Harte William J. Roll Field RNG Data Analysis, Based on Viewing the Japanese Takeshi Shimizu Movie Departures (Okuribito) Masato Ishikawa Th e Healing Connection: EEG Harmonics, Entrainment, Luke Hendricks and Schumann’s Resonances William F. Bengston Jay Gunkelman Laboratory Psi Eff ects May Be Put to Practical Use James Carpenter25:1 Are Th ere Stable Mean Values, and Relationships between Th em, in Statistical Parapsychology? Wolfgang Helfrich Exploring the Relationship between Tibetan Serena Roney-Dougal Meditation Attainment and Precognition Jerry Solfvin A Faulty PK Meta-Analysis Wilfried Kugel Karhunen-Loève Transform for Detecting Ionospheric Total Electron Content (TEC) Anomalies Prior to the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan Jyh-Woei Lin Eusapia Palladino: An Autobiographical Essay Carlos S. Alvarado Mental Health of Mediums and Diff erential Diagnosis between Adair Menezes, Jr. Mediumship and Mental Disorders Alexander Moreira-Almeida25:2 Objective Analyses of Real-Time and Audio Instrumental Mark Boccuzzi Transcommunication and Matched Control Sessions: Julie Beischel A Pilot Study Measurement Controls in Anomalies Research Walter E. Dibble Jr. William A. Tiller Hessdalen Lights and Piezoelectricity from Rock Strain Gerson S. Paiva C. A. Taft Retroactive Event Determination and the Interpretation Sky Nelson of Macroscopic Quantum Superposition States in Consistent Histories and Relational Quantum Mechanics Th oughts about Th ought Bundles: A Commentary on Jürgen Keil’s Michael Nahm Paper “Questions of the Reincarnation Type” Dieter Hassler Reply to the Nahm and Hassler Commentary on Jürgen Keil’s Jürgen Keil Paper “Questions of the Reincarnation Type” Th e Desire for the Development of Flight: A Recurrent Th eme B. Reiswig for Advanced Civilizations? D. Schulze-Makuch25:3 Refl ections on the Context of Near-Death Experiences Michael Nahm An Important Subject at the Institut Métapsychique International:

Jeanne LaPlace Guilio Caratelli Maria Luisa Felici A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund’s M. A. Woodley Juvenile “Cadborosaur” Report D. Naish C. A. McCormick


Avian Formation on a South-Facing Slope Along the Northwest Michael A. Dale Rim of the Argyre Basin George J. Haas James S. Miller William R. Saunders A. J. Cole Susan Orosz Joseph M. Friedlander On Wolverines and Epistemological Totalitarianism Etzel Cardeña25:3 Refl ections on the Context of Near-Death Experiences Michael Nahm An Important Subject at the Institut Métapsychique International:

Jeanne LaPlace Guilio Caratelli Maria Luisa Felici A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund’s M. A. Woodley Juvenile “Cadborosaur” Report D. Naish C. A. McCormick25:4 Revisiting the Ganzfeld Debate: A Basic Review and Assessment Bryan J. Williams Th e Global Consciousness Project: Identifying the Source of Psi Edwin C. May and S. James P. Spottiswoode Reply to May and Spottiswoode’s on Experimenter Eff ect as the Explanation for GCP Results Roger Nelson Reply to May and Spottiswoode’s “Th e Global Consciousness Project: Identifying the Source of Psi” Peter Bancel Th e Global Consciousness Project, Identifying the Source of Psi: Edwin C. May and A Response to Nelson and Bancel S. James P. Spottiswoode Alien Visitation, Extra-Terrestrial Life, and Paranormal Beliefs Neil Dagnell, Kenneth Drinkwater,

Andrew Parker Anomalous Switching of the Bi-Stable Percept of a Necker Cube: A Preliminary Study Dick J. Bierman Color Distribution of Light Balls in the Hessdalen Lights Phenomenon Gerson S. Paiva Carlton A. Taft On Elephants and Matters Epistemological: Reply to Etzel Cardeña’s Guest Editoral “On Wolverines and Epistemological Totalitarianism” Neal Grossman Response to Neal Grossman’s Reply “On Elephants and Matters Epistemological” Etzel Cardeña Ernesto Bozzano: An Italian Spiritualist and Psychical Researcher Luca Gasperini Obituary: In Memory of William Corliss Patrick Huyghe Letter: Pipefi sh or Pipedream? Ed L. Bousfi eld Paul H. LeBlond26:1 A Review of Sir William Crooke’s Papers on Psychic Force with Some Additional Remarks on Psychic Phenomena Masayoshi Ishida Th e Implications of Near-Death Experiences for Research into the Survival of Consciousness David Rousseau Remote Viewing the Future with a Tasking Temporal Outbounder Courtney Brown Relativistic Variations in the Permittivity and Permeability of Free Space = Gravitation Graeme D. Montgomery Historical Perspective: Th e Psychic Sciences in France: Historical Carlos S. Alvarado Notes on the Annales des Science Psychiques Renaud Evrard Obituary: Dr. Stuart Appelle: 1946–2011 Th omas E. Bullard Letter: Response to Bousfi eld and LeBlond: Shooting Pipefi sh Michael A. Woodley in a Barrel; or, Sauropterygian Mega-Serpents and Cameron A. McCormick Occam’s Razor Darren Naish


26:2 A PK Experiment with Zebra Finches and a Virtual Predator Fernando Alvarez Revisiting the Alexander UFO Religious Crisis Survey (AUFORCS): Is Th ere Really a Crisis? Jeff Levin Hallucinatory Telepathic Experiences Induced by Salvia divinorum Grzegorz Juszcak Hypnosis Reconsidered, Resituated, and Redefi ned Adam Crabtree Commentary: A Proposal Th at Does Not Advance Our Understanding Etzel Cardeña of Hypnosis Devin P. Terhune Commentary: Comments on Crabtree’s “Hypnosis Reconsidered, Resituated, and Redefi ned” Charles T. Tart Commentary: Regarding “Hypnosis Reconsidered, Resituated, and Redefi ned”: A Commentary on Crabtree Don Beere Reply to Th ree Commenters on “Hypnosis Reconsidered, Resituated, and Redefi ned” Adam Crabtree Historical Perspective: Th e Sorcerer of Cobenzl and His Legacy: Th e Life of Baron Karl Ludwig von Reichenbach, His Work and Its Aftermath Michael Nahm Obituary: William Roll Loyd Auerbach Letter to the Editor: Erroneous Expert Judgments Henry H. Bauer26:3 Earthquake Triggering: Verifi cation of Insights Obtained by Intuitive Consensus William H. Kautz Audience Size Eff ects in Field RNG Experiments: Th e Case of Takeshi Shimizu Japanese Professional Baseball Games Masato Ishikawa Pranic Healing: Documenting Use, Expectations, and Perceived Maritza Jauregui Benefi ts of a Little-Known Th erapy in the United States Tonya L. Schuster Mary D. Clark Joie P. Jones A New Approach to Veridicality in Dream Psi Studies Andrew Paquette Historical Perspective: Distortions of the Past Carlos S. Alvarado

Essay: Th e Review Reviewed: Stop Publication Bias J. Alexander de Ru John C. M. J. de Groot Jan-Willem M. Elshof26:4 Th e Bell Inequality and Nonlocal Causality Charles W. Lear Magnetic Anomalies and the Paranormal John D. Ralphs NDE Implications from a Group of Spontaneous Long-Distance Veridical OBEs Andrew Paquette Resonance between Birth Charts of Friends: Th e Development of a Gerhard Mayer New Astrological Tool on the Basis of an Investigation into Martin Garms Astrological Synastry Historical Perspective: Notes on Early Interpretations of Mediumship Carlos S. Alvarado

Essay: Seeking Immortality? Challenging the Drug-Based Medical Paradigm. SSE Dinsdale Award Address Henry H. Bauer Letter to the Editor: Identity of Shakespeare James S. Ferris

JSE Volumes 1–21 are available FREE at scientifi cexploration.org(JSE Vol. 22–25 are free to SSE members at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/login)

JSE Print Volumes 22–26 (2008–current) are available for $20/issue; use form below.

Year Volume Issue Price × Quantity = Amount $20

Postage is included in the fee.

ENCLOSED

Name Send to: SSE151 Petaluma Blvd. S. #301Petaluma CA 94952

Fax (1) (707) [email protected] (1) (415) 435-1604

Address

Phone/Fax

I am enclosing a check or money order

Please charge my credit card as follows: VISA MASTERCARD

Card Number Expiration

Signature

Send me information on the Society for Scientifi c Exploration

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION

ORDER FORM FOR 2008 – current PRINT ISSUES

GIFT JSE ISSUES AND GIFT SSE MEMBERSHIPS

Single Issue: A single copy of this issue can be purchased. For back issues, see order form on previous page and Index. Price: $20.00

Subscription: To send a gift subscription, fi ll out the form below.Price: $85 (online)/$145(print & online) for an individual

$165/$225 (online only/print) for library/institution/business

Gift Recipient Name __________________________________________________Gift Recipient Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Email Address of Recipient for publications________________________________ I wish to purchase a single copy of the current JSE issue.

I wish to remain anonymous to the gift recipient.

I wish to give a gift subscription to a library chosen by SSE.

I wish to give myself a subscription.

I wish to join SSE as an Associate Member for $85/yr or $145/yr (print), and receive this

quarterly journal (plus the EdgeScience magazine and The Explorer newsletter).

Your Name ___________________________________________________________Your Address ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Send this form to: Journal of Scientifi c ExplorationSociety for Scientifi c Exploration151 Petaluma Blvd. S., #301Petaluma CA 94952 USA


For more information about the Journal and the Society, go tohttp://www.scientifi cexploration.org

SOCIETY FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION

SOCIETY FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION

JOIN THE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER

The Society for Scientifi c Exploration has four member types:

Associate Member ($85/year with online Journal; $145 includes print Journal): Anyone who supports the goals of the Society is welcome. No application material is required.

Student Member ($40/year includes online Journal; $100/year includes print Journal): Send proof of enrollment in an accredited educational institution.

Full Member ($125/year for online Journal; $185/year includes Print Journal): Full Members may vote in SSE elections, hold offi ce in SSE, and present papers at annual conferences. Full Members are scientists or other scholars who have an established reputation in their fi eld of study. Most Full Members have: a) doctoral degree or equivalent; b) appointment at a university, college, or other research institution; and c) a record of publication in the traditional scholarly literature. Application material required: 1) Your curriculum vitae; 2) Bibliography of your publications; 2) Supporting statement by a Full SSE member; or the name of Full SSE member we may contact for support of your application. Send application materials to SSE Secretary Mark Urban-Lurain, [email protected]

Emeritus Member ($85/year with online Journal; $145/year includes print Journal): Full Members who are now retired persons may apply for Emeritus Status. Please send birth year, retirement year, and institution/company retired from.

All SSE members receive: online quarterly Journal of Scientifi c Exploration (JSE), EdgeScience online magazine, The Explorer online newsletter, notices of conferences, access to SSE online services, searchable recent Journal articles from 2008–current on the JSE site by member password, and for all 25 years of previous articles on the SSE site. For new benefi ts, see Institute for Scientifi c Exploration, instituteforscientifi cexploration.org

Your Name _______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________Email ________________________________________________________________Phone _____________________________ Fax _______________________________Payment of __________________________ enclosed, or Charge My VISA Mastercard Card Number ________________________________ Expiration_________

Send this form to: Society for Scientifi c Exploration151 Petaluma Blvd. S., #301Petaluma CA 94952 USA


For more information about the Journal and the Society, go tohttp://www.scientifi cexploration.org

Instructions to Authors(Revised February 2013)

All correspondence and submissions should be directed to:JSE Managing Editor, [email protected], 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma CA 94952 USA, (1) 415/435-1604, fax (1) 707/559-5030 Please submit all manuscripts at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/login (please note that “www” is NOT used in this address). Th is website provides directions for author registration and online submission of manuscripts. Full Author Instructions are posted on the Society for Scientifi c Exploration’s website at http://www.scientifi cexploration.org/documents/instructions_for_authors.pdf for submission of items for publication in the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration (including “Writing the Empirical Journal Article.” Before you submit a paper, please familiarize yourself with the Journal by reading JSE articles. (Back issues can be browsed in electronic form with SSE membership login at http://journalofscientifi c-exploration.org, click on Archive link; issues before 2008 are freely accessible at http://www.scientifi cex-ploration.org/journal/articles.html) Electronic fi les of text, tables, and fi gures at resolution of a minimum of 300 dpi (TIF or PDF preferred) will be required for online submission. You will also need to attest to a statement online that the article has not been previously published and is not submitted elsewhere.AIMS AND SCOPE: Th e Journal of Scientifi c Exploration publishes material consistent with the Soci-ety’s mission: to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science, and to promote improved understanding of social and intellectual factors that limit the scope of scientifi c inquiry. Topics of interest cover a wide spectrum, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to paradoxical phenomena that seem to belong to no established discipline, as well as philosophical issues about the connections among disciplines. Th e Journal publishes research articles, review articles, essays, book reviews, and letters or commentaries pertaining to previously published material.REFEREEING: Manuscripts will be sent to one or more referees at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers are given the option of providing an anonymous report or a signed report.

In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On many of the matters of interest to the Society for Sci-entifi c Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Th erefore the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proff ered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless, those ob-servations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument.

If publication is deemed warranted but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published along with the article, subject to the Editor-in-Chief ’s judgment as to length, wording, and the like. Th e publication of such critical reviews is intended to encourage debate and discussion of controversial issues, since such debate and discussion off er the only path toward eventual resolution and consensus. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR intended for publication should be clearly identifi ed as such. Th ey should be directed strictly to the point at issue, as concisely as possible, and will be published, possibly in edited form, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. PROOFS AND AUTHOR COPIES: Authors will receipt copyedited, typeset page proofs for review. Print copies of the published Journal will be sent to all named authors. COPYRIGHT: Authors retain copyright to their writings. However, when an article has been submitted to the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration for consideration, the Journal holds fi rst serial (periodical) publica-tion rights. Additionally, after acceptance and publication, the Society has the right to post the article on the Internet and to make it available via electronic as well as print subscription. Th e material must not appear anywhere else (including on an Internet website) until it has been published by the Journal (or rejected for publication). After publication in the Journal, authors may use the material as they wish but should make appropriate reference to the prior publication in the Journal. For example: “Reprinted from [or From] “[title of article]”, Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, vol. [xx], no. [xx], pp. [xx], published by the Society for Scientifi c Exploration, http://www.scientifi cexploration.org.” DISCLAIMER: While every eff ort is made by the Publisher, Editors, and Editorial Board to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion, or statement appears in this Journal, they wish to point out that the data and opinions appearing in the articles and announcements herein are the sole responsibility of the contributor concerned. Th e Publisher, Editors, Editorial Board, and their respective employees, offi cers, and agents accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of any such inaccurate or misleading data, opinion, or statement.


JSE 271 online.indd - Journal of Scientific Exploration

Documents

Transcript of JSE 271 online.indd - Journal of Scientific Exploration